Employment and Labour Law - SCJ

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, which stemmed from alleged mistreatment at the plaintiff's government employment and her union's failure to advance her cause, was found to be patently non-justiciable and bore the hallmarks of a querulant litigant.

The court concluded the claim appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process with no chance of success.

Consequently, the court stayed the action and directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, which alleged mistreatment by the plaintiff's union, appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and bore the hallmarks of a querulant litigant.

The court noted that the bulk of the complaints would fall within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action, stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing, and prohibited further filings other than the plaintiff's written submissions.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01.

The claim, which stemmed from the termination of the plaintiff's employment and the failure of the Queen to intervene, appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of a written hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment following the termination of her employment.

The defendant argued that the termination was governed by an employment contract that provided for two weeks' notice per year of service, which had been exceeded.

The court found that the employment contract was enforceable, as it was received prior to the plaintiff commencing work and its termination clause complied with the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The motion was dismissed, with the court noting that the appropriate common law notice period would have been 39 weeks had the contract been unenforceable.

The plaintiff brought an action against her former employer for constructive dismissal, bad faith termination, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and inducing breach of contract.

She alleged she was constructively dismissed due to increased hours and a poisoned work environment.

She also claimed the employer acted in bad faith and intentionally inflicted mental suffering by investigating her for post-employment sabotage of its billing system and reporting her to the police.

Finally, she alleged the employer induced a breach of a consulting contract she had with a third party.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the plaintiff resigned due to dissatisfaction with management, condoned any changes to her working conditions, and that the employer conducted its investigation in good faith.

The court also found no valid contract existed to support the inducing breach claim.

The plaintiff sought approval of a revised settlement in a class action regarding unpaid bank overtime.

The original settlement's claims process encountered difficulties, leading to a revised agreement where the defendant bank would pay an additional $20.6 million, bringing the total payout to $39.3 million.

The court approved the revised settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite some objections regarding the compensation bands.

The court also approved $2.3 million in legal fees for class counsel.

In the context of CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought approval of a grievance claims procedure to resolve approximately 3,000 outstanding grievances.

USW Local 2251 opposed the motion, arguing that the CCAA stay did not apply to grievances, that imposing a new procedure impermissibly amended the collective agreement, and that staying the grievance process violated section 2(d) of the Charter.

The court granted the motion, holding that the CCAA permits staying grievance procedures and imposing a claims process, which does not constitute an amendment to the collective agreement.

The court also found no Charter violation and held that under the doctrine of paramountcy, the CCAA stay provisions prevail over the grievance arbitration requirements in the provincial Labour Relations Act.

The plaintiff brought an unsuccessful summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought costs of $88,332.37 payable immediately, while the plaintiff argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court held that because the plaintiff was unemployed and the motion materials would be useful at trial, ordering immediate payment of significant costs would impede access to justice.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.

The defendants, a former employee and his wife, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's claim.

The employer sued the former employee for over $600,000 in accumulated trading losses incurred during his employment as a trader.

The court had to determine whether the employee was contractually obligated to indemnify the employer for trading losses in excess of his personal reserve account upon termination of his employment.

The court found that while the employer was entitled to apply the balance of the personal reserve against the losses, there was no express or implied term in the employment contract requiring the employee to cover the remaining losses.

The defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim for the excess losses was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages for breach of an employment agreement after his employment was terminated by a successor employer.

The defendant argued that the written agreement had been displaced by a common law employment relationship, limiting the plaintiff to common law notice.

The court found that while a common law relationship governed after the fixed-term contract expired, it did not discharge the defendant's obligations to pay the severance and sabbatical entitlements promised under the original agreement.

The court granted summary judgment for the contractual entitlements but dismissed the claims for bad faith and punitive damages.

The plaintiff sued her employer, CIBC, and the plan administrator, Great-West Life, for long-term disability benefits, funding for treatment plans, and damages for mental distress and punitive damages.

CIBC brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it.

The court found that CIBC did not breach its duty of good faith in refusing to fund the proposed treatment plans, as its decision was based on proper principles and supported by medical opinions.

The court also found no bad faith in CIBC withholding one month of benefits due to the plaintiff's failure to provide advance notice of out-of-province travel.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against CIBC were dismissed.

Following a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action under the simplified rules, the plaintiff sought costs of over $20,000.

The plaintiff recovered $13,076.92, which was less than half of the damages sought, and had abandoned a $50,000 punitive damages claim at trial.

The defendant argued no costs should be awarded as the recovery fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court declined to order no costs but, applying the principle of proportionality and noting the defendant's mixed success, fixed the plaintiff's costs at $5,000 all-inclusive.

Following a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff 16 months' pay in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal, the parties disputed the calculation of damages.

The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a car allowance and that his commissions should be calculated separately based on actual earnings pro-rated over the notice period.

However, the court agreed with the defendant that the award is subject to statutory deductions, including the repayment of Employment Insurance benefits to the Receiver General.

The court also held that pre-judgment interest must be calculated on the shortfall of payments during the salary continuance period, rather than as a lump sum, following the Court of Appeal's decision in Lowndes.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action for delay, failure to appoint counsel, and failure to comply with an interlocutory order.

The action had been struck from the trial list in 2012, and the plaintiff's former counsel had removed themselves from the record shortly after.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer real prejudice due to the faded memory of their key investigator.

The motion to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01 was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of transition loans totaling over $1.8 million made to the defendant financial advisor.

The defendant argued the repayment terms were unenforceable because they were provided after the business relationship commenced and lacked consideration, and that the relationship was actually employer-employee.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial given the late delivery of the repayment schedule and the potential inconsistency with the defendant's pending counterclaim.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's claims for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, duty of fidelity, negligence, and 'time theft', and to grant the defendant employee's counterclaim for constructive dismissal.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims, finding the non-solicitation clause void and expired, the employee not to be a fiduciary, and the remaining claims without merit.

The court granted summary judgment on liability for the employee's constructive dismissal counterclaim, finding the employer created a toxic work environment and repudiated the employment contract, and directed a trial solely on the quantum of damages.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims of vicarious liability and negligence arising from an alleged sexual assault by a co-worker at an unsupervised staff party.

The court struck the claim for the independent tort of sexual harassment, as it is ousted by the Human Rights Code.

However, the court declined to strike the claims for vicarious liability and negligence, finding it was not plain and obvious that they had no reasonable prospect of success given the employer's role in hosting the party and providing alcohol.

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

He claimed he was induced to leave his previous employment and sought 12 months' notice, along with compensation for a discretionary bonus.

The court found no inducement, as the plaintiff actively sought the position and negotiated his terms.

The court awarded 4.5 months' reasonable notice, considering his age, position, short tenure, and the time of year he was terminated.

The claim for bonus damages was dismissed because the bonus plan was purely discretionary and required active employment at year-end.

The plaintiff was also awarded mitigation expenses and health benefits, subject to deductions for earnings from his new employment.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $15,419.95.

The plaintiffs argued there should be no order as to costs because the defendants had refused to mediate and the case was a matter of public interest.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no reason to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event, and awarded the defendants their requested costs payable in any event of the cause.

The plaintiff, a 56-year-old Director of Business Development with 22.5 years of service, was terminated without cause by the defendant pharmaceutical company.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the reasonable notice period to be 24 months, considering the plaintiff's senior role and the specialized nature of his employment.

The court also awarded damages including a 2% salary increase and a bonus based on the average of the two years prior to termination.

The court ordered that any income earned by the plaintiff during the post-judgment notice period be held in trust and paid to the defendant upon the expiry of the notice period.