Employment and Labour Law - SCJ

The plaintiff, a highly successful financial planner, was dismissed for cause by the defendant bank based on allegations of forwarding confidential emails, processing trades before obtaining written authorization, and backdating documents.

The court found the employer's investigation was deeply flawed, biased, and failed to establish just cause for termination.

The employer's bad faith conduct, including filing a regulatory Notice of Termination that falsely claimed the plaintiff was dismissed for cause, effectively ended her career in the financial industry.

The court awarded 16 months' reasonable notice, substantial damages for loss of earning capacity, aggravated damages for mental distress, and punitive damages to punish the employer's reprehensible conduct.

The employer was also ordered to correct the regulatory filing.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs from the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim, which sought punitive damages based on the defendant's counterclaim for misappropriation of confidential information being a bullying tactic.

The defendant argued these pleadings disclosed no cause of action and were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rules 21.01 and 25.11.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claim for punitive/exemplary damages would fail.

The judge emphasized that the unique principles of employment relationships, including the inherent power imbalance, allow for such claims, and that the issue should be decided at trial on a full evidentiary record, not at the pleadings stage.

The Representative Plaintiff, Marc-Oliver Baroch, brought a consent motion in a certified and settled class action to amend the Distribution Protocol.

The motion sought approval to reallocate uncashed funds from the first distribution, distribute accrued interest, allow for further distribution to class members who missed the first distribution, and obtain a cy-pres order for any remaining excess funds to be donated to SickKids Hospital and/or the OTA Education Foundation.

The defendants did not oppose the motion, and the court granted the requested amendments to ensure efficient and complete distribution of settlement funds.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, or alternatively, to strike specific paragraphs.

The plaintiff, a former union president, claimed constructive dismissal, breach of contract, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and defamation following a prolonged conflict with the defendants.

The court declined to strike the claim as a whole, finding it provided a logical presentation of the conflict and could be responded to.

However, the court struck several specific paragraphs that contained evidence, irrelevant historical facts, or immaterial references to non-parties, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking the production of unredacted copies of documents listed in the defendant's affidavit of documents, which related to an internal investigation leading to her dismissal.

The defendant sought a confidentiality order over the documents, arguing they contained personal information of non-parties.

The court ordered the production of the unredacted documents, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate that disclosure would cause significant harm or that the redacted information was clearly irrelevant.

The court also declined to impose a formal confidentiality order, concluding that the deemed undertaking rule and an undertaking provided by the plaintiff's counsel were sufficient to protect the defendant's interests.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action moved for leave to amend the Statement of Claim to add the corporate directors of the defendant companies as new defendants.

The amendment was sought due to concerns about the existing defendants' ability to pay outstanding wages, particularly in light of the global travel industry's collapse due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no prejudice to any party, as the defendants did not object and the action was still at an early stage.

Leave to amend was granted, with no costs awarded.

In a certified class action regarding whether document reviewers were employees or independent contractors, the plaintiff moved for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The court reviewed 11 categories of requested documents.

The court ordered the production of the defendant's insurance policy under Rule 30.02(3), but dismissed the remaining requests, noting that a party has no obligation to create documents that do not exist, and that requests for privileged communications and judicial inspection were premature or improper.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding the alleged misclassification of non-managerial sales representatives as independent contractors rather than employees.

The parties consented to certification but disputed whether the class should be divided into two subclasses (lead generators and appointment bookers) and whether a second representative plaintiff was required.

The court certified the class action, divided the class into two subclasses for efficiency, and held that the single plaintiff could represent both subclasses as there was no actual conflict of interest.

The applicant, an independent financial advisor, brought an application to recover service commissions withheld by the respondent company.

The respondent had implemented a new policy making the payment of service commissions dependent on new sales performance.

The court interpreted the Financial Security Advisor Contract between the parties and found that, although service commissions were not explicitly listed in the compensation schedule, they were contemplated by the contract.

The court held that the clear and unambiguous wording of the contract allowed the respondent to modify or withdraw any established pay arrangement, including service commissions, for failure to meet minimum performance standards.

The application was dismissed.

Following a certification motion in a proposed class action by former junior hockey players seeking minimum wage and overtime pay, the court determined the costs awards.

The plaintiffs succeeded in certifying the action against the Canadian teams but failed against the American teams.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $1,212,065.63 in partial indemnity costs, with $500,000 payable forthwith and the balance in the cause.

The American teams were awarded $200,000 in costs, which the court ordered to be credited against the plaintiffs' award, akin to a Bullock or Sanderson order, reflecting that both sides were responsible for the excessive litigation expense.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision finding they had partially waived solicitor-client privilege during an examination for discovery.

The underlying dispute involved whether the plaintiff was entitled to shares or stock options upon termination of employment.

During discovery, the individual defendant stated he had told others his lawyer 'botched' the documents.

The Master ruled this waived privilege over the instructions given to the lawyer.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that solicitor-client privilege is a substantive rule of law and that a partial waiver based on a discovery answer must be voluntary, informed, and clear.

The court found the defendants had not put their state of mind or reliance on legal advice in issue in their pleadings, and thus no implied or partial waiver occurred.

The applicants sought to maintain an interlocutory injunction enjoining a former employee and his new company from soliciting clients.

The court found that the applicants continued to be at risk of irreparable harm from the loss of goodwill and business.

The injunction was maintained but amended to prohibit direct solicitation for a one-year period while allowing the respondents to accept unsolicited work from the applicants' clients.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer and its owners, alleging age discrimination.

The personal defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the age discrimination claims against them.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on the entire claim.

The court granted the personal defendants' motion, finding no employment relationship and no factual foundation for the age discrimination claim.

On the plaintiff's motion, the court found no cause for termination and that the plaintiff had mitigated his damages, leaving only the quantum of notice to be determined at a later date.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant for non-compliance with a Master's order regarding discovery refusals and production of documents, which had been upheld on appeal.

While the court declined to hear the contempt aspect due to short notice, it addressed the merits of the outstanding refusal (Refusal #3) and extended the time for the continued examination of the defendant's representative.

The court found the defendant's claim of no documentation for a previously admitted analysis to be incredible and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant's persistent delays and litigation tactics.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from soliciting customers, alleging breach of a non-solicitation clause in a confidentiality agreement.

The respondents denied signing the agreement.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the agreement's existence but no irreparable harm, as losses were quantifiable in damages.

The motion for injunction was dismissed, and the application was converted to an action for damages.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff, a 66-year-old labourer with over 12 years of service, was terminated purportedly for cause after being arrested for off-duty criminal charges.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer failed to establish just cause, as the criminal charges were unrelated to the workplace, there was no evidence of reputational harm, and the allegations of dishonesty and cumulative discipline were unfounded.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' reasonable notice.

The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claims against the individual manager was granted, as the manager acted within the scope of his employment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment alleging constructive dismissal after the employer replaced her during a medical leave and offered a significantly reduced position at lower pay.

The court held that the employer had already fundamentally altered the employment relationship by hiring a permanent replacement and offering only a demoted role, constituting constructive dismissal.

Summary judgment was granted on liability and reasonable notice was fixed at 15 months, including salary, benefits, and bonus entitlement.

However, genuine issues requiring trial remained regarding aggravated damages and alleged discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal subject to mitigation, while the remaining claims could proceed to further adjudication.

A commissioned sales employee sued his employer alleging negligence after management failed to renew a federal National Standing Offer that enabled sales to a major customer, causing a temporary loss of commissions.

The court considered whether an employer owes a tort duty of care to an employee to maintain profitability or preserve sales opportunities that generate commission income.

The court held that the employment contract did not guarantee sales levels and the employer’s administrative oversight in failing to renew the standing offer did not create a recognized duty of care in tort.

Even if such a duty existed, the plaintiff failed to prove damages because he produced no tax records or reliable evidence of actual income loss during the relevant period.

The claim for lost commissions was therefore dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking determination of questions of law and dismissal of a statement of claim arising from an employment dispute.

The plaintiff had previously pursued overtime and public holiday pay through an Employment Standards Act complaint and received compensation through a Ministry of Labour order.

The court held that s. 97(1) and (3) of the Employment Standards Act barred a civil proceeding relating to the same employment matters.

The court further held that alleged defamatory statements made to an Employment Standards officer during the ESA investigation were protected by absolute privilege because they occurred in a quasi‑judicial proceeding.

The employment and defamation claims were therefore legally unsustainable.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of an amended statement of claim against a corporate officer personally.

The plaintiff sought damages related to her termination of employment and pleaded tort claims for intentional or negligent infliction of nervous shock and punitive damages against the officer.

The court held it was plain and obvious that the tort claims had no reasonable prospect of success because allowing them would circumvent contractual exclusion and entire agreement clauses contained in the employment agreement.

Applying principles from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence concerning limitation of liability clauses and privity, the court found the exclusion clause extended to the officer acting within the scope of employment.

The claims against the officer were struck in their entirety without leave to amend.