Employment and Labour Law - SCJ

The decision addresses a motion to amend the Statement of Claim in a civil action brought by Gurupdesh Pandher against the University of Windsor and several individuals.

The court considers whether the plaintiff may add Human Rights Code claims from prior HRTO applications, the addition of new defendants, the sufficiency of defamation pleadings, the scope of misfeasance in public office, the introduction of new human rights grounds, the effect of the collective agreement and labour arbitration, the use of documents subject to the deemed or implied undertaking rule, and the pleading of matters subject to settlement privilege.

The court grants some amendments, strikes others, and provides detailed directions for further pleadings.

The plaintiff, Ryan Grealy, brought an action for damages for breach of contract after his employment with XL Tool Inc. was terminated without cause.

Grealy had left a long-term position at Diematic Tooling Solutions Inc. to join the defendant, initially on a part-time basis and then full-time.

Upon termination, he was paid one week’s severance as required by the Employment Standards Act, but claimed this was inadequate.

The court considered whether Grealy was induced to leave secure employment, the appropriate notice period, and whether punitive damages were warranted.

The court found no inducement, set a reasonable notice period of 12 weeks, and awarded damages accordingly, but denied punitive damages.

The plaintiff, Ismayil Abbasbayli, challenged his dismissal from Fiera Foods Company, alleging it was a reprisal for whistleblowing and union activity.

The court found that Fiera had just cause for dismissal due to time theft and dishonesty, and that the investigation was adequate.

The court rejected claims of reprisal, found no entitlement to moral or punitive damages, and dismissed the claim for damages against the personal defendants.

The action was dismissed.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and related economic torts arising from the formation of Icon Plumbing and the departure of key personnel from Riva Plumbing.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants competed unlawfully, misused confidential information, or caused any compensable loss.

The counterclaim for unpaid bonuses by Mike Ladisa and Joseph Ferrari was allowed, with damages awarded in the agreed amount plus interest.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate amount of costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff following a wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the case, the offers to settle, and the applicable rules, ultimately awarding the plaintiff the maximum costs permitted under Rule 76.12.1, plus reasonable disbursements, due to the defendant’s unreasonable settlement position and litigation conduct.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction to Titan Tool & Die Limited, restraining Unifor, its Local 195, and named individuals from blockading the applicant’s premises and obstructing the removal of customer-owned tooling.

The decision addresses whether the dispute was a “labour dispute” under the Courts of Justice Act, the procedural and jurisdictional issues raised, and the application of the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

The court found the protest was not a labour dispute, that the requirements for an injunction were met even if it were, and that the balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and serious issue to be tried all favoured granting the injunction.

The court considered a wrongful dismissal claim by Jesse Lachapelle against St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc. following his layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed on March 24, 2020, and was entitled to seven months’ reasonable notice, with credit for inducement and the impact of the pandemic on employment prospects.

The court rejected the employer’s arguments regarding force majeure and found that the plaintiff was not required to accept substantially altered terms of employment.

The plaintiff was not entitled to aggravated, bad faith, or punitive damages, as the employer’s conduct was not malicious or high-handed.

The court calculated damages based on the plaintiff’s actual earnings and benefits, and dismissed the claim for a construction retention bonus.

The applicant, a former president and Life member of the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), challenged the revocation of his Life membership, claiming it breached the CIU By-laws and seeking reinstatement.

The Court found that Life membership was an honorary status, not contractual, and that its revocation was not justiciable.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the relationship did not create enforceable legal rights.

The court considered a motion to strike all claims against Patricia France, the former President of St. Clair College, in an action by Waseem Habash for breach of contract, defamation, injurious falsehood, and related torts.

The court partially granted the motion, striking only the claim for intentional interference with contractual and/or economic relations, but granted leave to amend the claim for inducing breach of contract.

The court found that the pleadings for defamation and injurious falsehood were sufficient to proceed, as was the claim for inducing breach of contract (subject to amendment), and that there was an arguable basis for personal liability against Ms. France.

The court fixed costs following the dismissal of a personal injury action after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) determined the plaintiff’s right of action was removed by statute.

The court considered the conduct of both parties, including delay in bringing the WSIAT application, and awarded the defendants $62,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, excluding costs related to the WSIAT hearing and a security for costs motion.

The court considered the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff, John Teljeur, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the defendants' conduct was egregious and deserving of censure.

The court found the employer's failure to pay owed amounts and comply with statutory obligations justified an award of substantial indemnity costs, but made modest reductions for certain litigation steps.

The final award was $24,000 in substantial indemnity costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, Syed Bahauddin, was employed as a chef at the defendants’ restaurant for over 20 years before being dismissed without cause.

After settling a wrongful dismissal action, the defendants failed to pay the full judgment.

The plaintiff sought and was granted an order requiring the garnishee, 1436318 Ontario Ltd., to pay the outstanding amount.

The court found the mortgage between related parties to be valid and enforceable, rejected claims that it was a sham, and concluded that the equities favoured the plaintiff.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

This decision concerns two related lawsuits between siblings over the estate of their late mother, Carmen Debono.

The first action is for wrongful dismissal and oppression by David Debono and Elizabeth Muscat against the estate, its trustees, and two corporations.

The second is a claim by the estate, through its trustees, against David Debono, Elizabeth Muscat, and Jennifer Nesci for recovery of debts and alleged misappropriation of funds.

The court addresses interim motions for distributions and legal fees, as well as document production and the effect of an in terrorem clause in the will.

Both motions are dismissed, with the court emphasizing the need for transparency and full disclosure, and declining to enforce the in terrorem clause or grant interim relief at this stage.

The plaintiff, Henry Brent Shelp, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against GoSecure Inc. The main issues were the period of common law reasonable notice and the calculation of income loss, particularly entitlement to sales commissions during the notice period.

The court found the matter suitable for summary judgment and determined that the reasonable notice period was six months.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages including base salary, commissions, benefits, and cell phone allowance for the notice period, less mitigation income and amounts already paid.

The total damages awarded were $163,659.92 plus pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff, a former associate lawyer, brought a motion to add a new individual defendant to his claim against his former firm and three individual lawyers.

The existing individual defendants brought a cross-motion to strike the claim against them.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the claim against the individual defendants, finding no viable causes of action for employment claims, defamation, conspiracy, or direct breaches of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Human Rights Code against them.

The plaintiff's motion to add a new defendant was dismissed.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the claim against the firm (WeirFoulds LLP) for breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, and ESA claims, with human rights allegations tethered to these.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

This motion concerned the substitution of a representative plaintiff in a class action alleging underpayment of vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation by RBC General Insurance Company and Aviva General Insurance Company.

The original proposed representative plaintiff, Deval Trivedi, was found to be statute-barred against Aviva General.

The plaintiff sought to substitute Binay Saroop as the representative plaintiff against Aviva General and to amend the statement of claim.

The court found that Saroop met the 'some basis in fact' test to rebut the statutory presumption regarding the limitation period and did not have a disqualifying conflict of interest, thus being an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion to substitute Saroop and amend the claim was granted.

In a proposed employment law class action, Amazon successfully resisted certification and obtained a stay for certain claims.

Amazon sought approximately $2.0 million in costs, while the plaintiff, Denver Davis, argued for an award of around $400,000.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and access to justice in class proceedings, awarded Amazon costs on a partial indemnity basis of $750,000, finding both parties' requested amounts to be unreasonable.

The decision emphasized that costs should reflect what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, not necessarily the successful party's actual costs, and acknowledged the public interest element in the plaintiff's claim.

This trial decision addresses a claim by Sunwing Airlines Inc. against a former employee, Amilcar Mora, alleging his involvement in a kickback scheme.

Sunwing contended that Mora received over $500,000 in kickbacks from a Cuban contractor, Sylvie Leduc, between 2012 and 2017.

Mora denied the allegations and brought a wrongful dismissal counterclaim.

The court primarily focused on witness credibility, finding Sunwing's witnesses credible and Mora and a co-defendant, Sonya Sekulic, not credible due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimony and documentary evidence.

The court found that Mora was involved in the kickback scheme and that Sunwing had just cause for his termination.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1 for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, following a prior endorsement.

The self-represented plaintiff, Gregory Potter, submitted a letter outlining his complaints against his former employer, CSIS/CSE, including harassment, physical threats, and electronic harassment, which he argued constituted wrongful dismissal, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court found the current statement of claim lacked concise material facts and appeared vexatious due to numerous defendants without specific allegations.

Consequently, the court struck the current statement of claim but granted leave for the plaintiff to file a new, amended statement of claim by April 30, 2021, provided it sets out specific facts against specific parties.

The court encouraged the plaintiff to seek legal assistance.

The plaintiff, Ursula Sams, brought a motion for default judgment against her former employer, BCG Logistics (2000) Inc., for wrongful dismissal after 12 years of employment.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court initially declined to grant the full relief sought due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of benefits, the plaintiff's mitigation efforts, and the basis for aggravated damages.

The plaintiff was required to provide further evidence, including her current employment status and proof of income.

Despite initially attempting to avoid disclosing re-employment, the plaintiff later confirmed she had found comparable employment within four months.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's obligation to mitigate damages, even in a default judgment scenario.

The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff statutory termination pay and damages for the period until she secured new employment, dismissing claims for aggravated damages and the argument that mitigation credit was not required due to default.