Employment and Labour Law - SCJ

The defendant, Klick Inc. dba Klick Health, brought a motion to transfer a wrongful dismissal action from Hamilton (Central South Region) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff, Danielle Tasson, opposed the motion.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the relevant Practice Direction, emphasizing a holistic approach.

The court found that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was reasonable, particularly in light of her childcare needs and residence circumstances, and that the defendant had not established that Toronto was “significantly better.” The motion to transfer was dismissed.

The court dismissed Tianjian Wang’s action against the Attorney General of Canada and Joanne Gentile for lack of jurisdiction, holding that section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act bars civil actions by federal public service employees for employment-related disputes, requiring such matters to be addressed through the grievance process.

The court rejected constitutional challenges to section 236, finding it within Parliament’s authority and not discriminatory under the Charter.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of an interlocutory injunction to restrain a blockade at the applicant’s premises.

The court considered written submissions on costs and, applying the relevant legal principles and factors, ordered the respondents to pay the applicant $14,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision reviews the purposes of costs, proportionality, and the appropriateness of awarding costs forthwith after an interlocutory injunction, referencing relevant case law and statutory provisions.

This decision concerns an urgent case conference in which the plaintiffs, One World Logistics Group Corp. and Makstrans Logistic Ltd., sought interim injunctive relief against the defendant, Maksim Sotiri, following his termination from employment.

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality covenants.

The court declined to grant an interim order restraining competition, citing the breadth of the covenant and the compensability of damages.

Orders were made regarding confidentiality, provision of login codes, and a temporary restraint on further complaints to regulatory bodies pending a full hearing.

The matter was scheduled for a full injunction motion.

The court considered whether the respondents were required to indemnify the applicants for legal costs incurred in proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, following a dispute over the sale of business and union obligations.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding that the indemnity provision in the parties’ settlement did not extend to the costs in question, based on contractual interpretation, the parties’ intentions, and public policy.

The court dismissed the main action against Roger Rameshwar Rajkumar, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability for environmental damage to property.

The court granted the counterclaim of Rita Josomatee Rajkumar and 1526381 Ontario Inc. against Gloria Rajkumar, Superior Independent Medical Assessment Centre Ltd., and Simac Canada Inc., finding that Rita was constructively dismissed and entitled to 18 months’ notice and damages.

The decision addresses the legal standards for piercing the corporate veil, the distinction between employee and independent contractor, and the requirements for constructive dismissal and reasonable notice.

The court found that William Williamson was wrongfully dismissed by Brandt Tractor Inc. after 18 years of service.

The employer failed to prove just cause for dismissal, relying on hearsay evidence regarding a customer complaint.

The court awarded damages based on a 17-month notice period and dismissed the claim for punitive damages, finding no egregious conduct beyond the statutory breach.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

The plaintiffs, Athanasia (Soula) Bougiotis and CleanMark Group Inc., sought interlocutory relief against the defendant, Jamil Manji, including the return and deletion of confidential information, an injunction restraining harassment, and an Anton Piller order.

The court found that Mr. Manji, a former employee, had engaged in a campaign of harassment and misuse of confidential information after his termination.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald and Anton Piller tests, found a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The court granted the requested relief and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

The court considered a wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions claim by Kashif Salam against his former employer, Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network (ORION).

The court found that while a draft commission plan was never finalized or binding, the parties’ conduct and employment agreement entitled Mr. Salam to commissions of up to 15% of his base salary.

The court awarded him damages for six months’ reasonable notice, loss of benefits, and commissions, totaling $58,419.52 less statutory deductions.

The plaintiff, Arc Compute, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants—two former senior employees and their new company—from retaining or disclosing confidential information, competing with the plaintiff, and interfering with its client and employee relationships.

The court found that the defendants, as fiduciaries, breached both contractual and common law duties by retaining confidential information and soliciting clients and employees for their competing business.

The court granted a modified injunction, requiring the return of all confidential information, the shutdown of the competing company, and a six-month worldwide non-competition order.

The decision concerns a shareholder dispute following the breakdown of business relations among the founders of Rideau Elevator Services Inc. and its holding company, 12319896 Canada Limited.

The court found that the defendants, Wilcox and Wheeler, unfairly disregarded Cullain’s reasonable expectations and oppressed him by dismissing him as an employee and purporting to remove him as a director.

The court granted Cullain’s motion for summary judgment, ordered the corporate defendants to purchase Cullain’s shares, and awarded damages for wrongful dismissal.

The court considered a motion by Marc Castillo and Castillo HR Consulting Inc. to stay the action for abuse of process due to Peninsula Employment Services Ltd.'s failure to immediately disclose settlement agreements with three former co-defendants.

The court found that the delayed disclosure of these agreements, which required the settling defendants to cooperate with the plaintiff, fundamentally altered the adversarial landscape and violated the strict requirement for immediate disclosure.

As a result, the action was permanently stayed.

The court also addressed, in obiter, the obligations of the Independent Supervising Solicitor regarding the production and accessibility of electronic documents seized under an Anton Piller Order.

The court considered a motion by the plaintiffs to extend the time to set their action down for trial under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, alleging wrongful dismissal and related claims, faced delays due to both parties’ conduct, changes in counsel, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, much of which was attributable to inadvertence and file management issues at counsel’s firm, and that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court granted the extension and imposed a timetable for the remaining steps.

This decision concerns a motion by Paula Boutis to amend her statement of claim in an employment and civil liability action against The Corporation of the County of Norfolk, the Board of Health for Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit, Kristal Chopp, and Jason Burgess.

The court reviews the proposed amendments, including new causes of action such as breaches of the Human Rights Code, intrusion upon seclusion, intentional interference with contractual relations, negligent infliction of mental suffering, and defamation.

The court applies the principles governing amendments to pleadings, limitation periods, and the rules of pleading, granting or refusing leave to amend specific paragraphs accordingly.

The decision addresses procedural issues arising at the start of a wrongful dismissal trial under the simplified procedure.

The plaintiff sought relief regarding the admissibility of certain documents produced late by the defendant and guidance on trial management.

The court held that a redacted settlement letter could be admitted due to a compelling public interest, but excluded other late-produced documents for lack of explanation.

The court also clarified the treatment of discovery transcripts and trial affidavits, and allowed an amendment to the Statement of Claim on consent.

The plaintiff, Lisa Brown, sought an order requiring the defendant, The Bank of Nova Scotia, to produce documents listed in Schedule B of its affidavit of documents, and leave to examine and cross-examine certain bank officials.

The court found that most of the documents in question were protected by solicitor-client privilege, as they related to legal advice sought after a workplace investigation had concluded.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a common interest privilege applied.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant, but payment was deferred until the conclusion of the action.

The court granted the defendants leave to amend their Amended Statement of Defence, finding that the proposed amendments—alleging an oral agreement regarding a book of business and constructive dismissal—would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the legal test for amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that amendments should be allowed unless they cause injustice not compensable by costs or adjournment, are not tenable at law, or lack sufficient particulars.

The court found that the delay in seeking the amendments was explained and did not result in actual prejudice to the plaintiff, and that the amendments were based on facts already known to the parties.

The court dismissed Tar Heel Investments Inc.'s claims against H.L. Staebler Company Limited, Lisa Arseneau, and Debbie Sutton regarding the alleged wrongful sale and use of a transportation insurance book of business.

The court found that Arseneau was not merely an employee but entered into a quasi-partnership with PDI, retaining ownership of her book of business.

No binding agreement was reached regarding the TRIP book of business, and Arseneau was constructively dismissed when her employment terms were unilaterally changed.

The court held that neither fiduciary nor confidentiality duties survived the constructive dismissal, and there was no conversion, conspiracy, or breach of contract by the defendants.

The action was dismissed.