Employment and Labour Law - SCJ

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of debt collectors who were temporarily laid off when Global Credit's largest client, Capital One, terminated its collection agreement.

Following the termination, Capital One paid Global a $5.7 million settlement.

The plaintiff claimed the class members were contractually entitled to a 15 percent commission on this settlement, arguing it was compensation for post-dated cheques returned to Capital One.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the action, finding that the settlement was not compensation for the post-dated cheques and that commissions were only payable if individual monthly breakeven targets were met, which did not occur.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits and related damages, including an allegation of conspiracy.

The plaintiff had previously received benefits but her coverage was terminated when she reduced her work hours to part-time.

The court found no evidence to support the conspiracy claim against the employer or the insurers.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as she discovered or ought to have discovered her claim when she was allegedly unable to work full-time in March 2007, but did not commence the action until May 2011.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a representation order under Rule 12.07 to amend the statement of claim, adding the individual defendants as representatives of all members of the defendant trade union.

The defendants argued this would improperly add parties after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court found the motion was an attempt to correct an error in the title of proceedings under Rule 5.04, not to add new parties, as the union had been a party from the outset.

The court granted the representation order, noting the defendants' delay in bringing their own Rule 21 motion and the lack of prejudice.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of approximately 7,000 door-to-door sales agents who were hired by the defendants as independent contractors.

The plaintiff alleged that the sales agents were misclassified and were actually employees entitled to benefits under the Employment Standards Act.

The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, noting sufficient evidence of systemic commonality regarding the defendants' control over the sales agents.

The motion for certification was granted.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants except one corporate entity, relying on an 'Entire Agreement' clause in an independent contractor agreement.

The court treated the motion as one under Rule 21.01(1)(b) rather than Rule 25.11.

The court found that the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to support a reasonable cause of action against the remaining corporate defendants based on the common employer doctrine.

The motion to strike the claims against the four corporate defendants was dismissed, while the claims against the personal defendant and one paragraph of the statement of claim were struck on consent.

The plaintiff, a production supervisor with 19 years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged that 1500 defective camshafts were produced on the plaintiff's shift, and that the plaintiff was dishonest during the subsequent investigation.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the defective parts were indeed produced on the plaintiff's shift and that the plaintiff lied about his involvement.

Applying the McKinley test, the court held that the plaintiff's failure to properly supervise the line, combined with his dishonesty and prior disciplinary record, constituted serious misconduct that struck at the heart of the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff former employee brought a motion to compel the defendant employer to answer questions refused on discovery and produce documents over which the defendants claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The defendants had produced certain emails between their lawyer and a senior employee in their affidavit of documents and answered questions about them on discovery, later claiming the disclosure was inadvertent.

The court found the disclosure was not inadvertent and that the defendants could not selectively waive privilege to support their defence of acting in good faith while withholding other communications on the same issue.

The motion was granted, and the defendants were ordered to produce all related communications.

The defendant brought a motion for the production of notes and records from the plaintiff's counsel's file.

The plaintiff had previously moved to amend his statement of claim to withdraw an admission that he resigned, alleging his counsel made a drafting error and that he had actually been terminated.

The court found that by putting his communications with his counsel into issue to explain the alleged error, the plaintiff waived solicitor-client privilege over those specific communications.

The motion was granted in part, ordering the production of direct communications between the plaintiff and his counsel regarding how his employment ended.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought costs of $13,418.32, including a substantial indemnity portion based on an offer to settle.

The court found Rule 49.10 did not apply as the offer was served on the morning of the hearing.

Considering the mixed success on issues, unnecessary cross-examinations, and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $7,250.

The plaintiff university brought an action against its former Assistant Vice-President and Director of Maintenance, alleging they orchestrated multiple fraudulent schemes, including false invoicing, kickbacks, and using university resources for personal residence improvements.

The court found the defendants liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, ordering them to pay damages.

The court also voided the transfer of the primary defendant's properties to his family members as fraudulent conveyances and rescinded his severance agreement due to material non-disclosure of his fraudulent activities.

The defendants sought clarification of a trial decision regarding the quantum of overtime payable to the plaintiff, arguing that business closures and vacations should reduce the amount.

They also asked the court to revisit a finding regarding a fraudulent withdrawal of cheques.

Applying Rule 59.06(1), the court held it could only correct accidental slips or omissions.

The court found no evidence to support reducing overtime for business closures or family vacations, as the plaintiff was not cross-examined on these points.

However, the court corrected its original decision to exclude overtime for two specific vacation periods taken by the plaintiff.

The court declined to change its finding on the fraudulent cheques, noting the timeline of the cheques supported the original conclusion.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old upholsterer with 32 years of service, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

He passed away before trial, raising preliminary evidentiary issues regarding the admissibility of his examination for discovery transcripts and hearsay statements made to others.

The court admitted the evidence under the principled approach to hearsay.

On the merits, the court found the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed, not having resigned as the employer claimed, and awarded 23 months' reasonable notice.

The court also awarded $5,000 for a breach of the Human Rights Code, finding the termination was partly based on age and disability, but dismissed claims for aggravated and punitive damages.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc., three former employees brought a motion seeking payment of lump sum retention bonuses under their severance agreements.

The respondent argued the payments were pre-filing obligations subject to the CCAA stay.

The court found the bonuses were compensation for post-filing services, as they were contingent on the employees remaining available to work during the notice period.

The court exercised its discretion to order payment, finding it fair and equitable as it would not create an unfair priority over other employees and the amounts were de minimus.

The Receiver brought a motion to distribute funds to the secured creditor, RBC, and to approve its fees.

The Union opposed, claiming a super-priority for unpaid pension and other benefits under the BIA over all companies in the receivership, and sought to claw back the Receiver's fees.

The court held that the CRA's deemed trust for unremitted source deductions under the Income Tax Act takes priority over the Union's BIA super-priority claims.

The court also rejected the Union's attempt to extend its claims to other corporate entities in the group, finding no evidence they were related employers or participated in the pension plan.

The Union's attempt to claw back the Receiver's fees was dismissed as an impermissible collateral attack.

The plaintiff dentist brought an action against his former employee for misappropriation of funds.

The defendant employee brought a motion to strike the statement of claim or for summary judgment dismissing the action, arguing it was statute-barred and lacked sufficient particulars.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to consolidate the action with the defendant's separate constructive dismissal action.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding the pleadings sufficient and that genuine issues of material fact required a trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion in part, ordering the two actions to be tried together or consecutively to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendant university brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's representative action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and the dispute should be resolved by a labour arbitrator.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to share savings from the Employment Insurance Premium Reduction Program with employees.

The court applied the Weber test and found that the essential character of the dispute did not arise from the collective agreement, but rather from the defendant's alleged failure to comply with the Employment Insurance Act.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The plaintiff, a successful retail stockbroker, sued his former employer for breach of contract, alleging he was owed a 10% finder's fee on several large corporate finance transactions under an April 11, 2006 agreement.

The court found that the agreement was exclusively a retail document and did not apply to transactions involving the employer's Capital Markets group.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for negligent overpayment of his assistant, unjust enrichment, bad faith, and entitlement to unvested deferred stock units.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff, a registered practical nurse and office manager with 22 years of service, sued her employer, a plastic surgeon, for wrongful dismissal.

Following a dispute over the implementation of electronic medical records, the employer yelled at the plaintiff, used profanity, and told her to get out, stating he was sick of looking at her 'ugly face'.

The court found that the plaintiff was expressly fired, or alternatively constructively dismissed, as the employer's conduct made continued employment intolerable.

The court awarded a 24-month notice period, less mitigation earnings, but dismissed claims for aggravated and punitive damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the reasonable notice period following her without-cause termination.

The 41-year-old plaintiff was employed as a middle manager for 2.5 years.

The court found that the employer's contributions to CPP and EI should be included in the calculation of her compensation package.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at six months and awarded damages of $23,315, representing the balance owing after deducting severance payments already made.

The plaintiff's employment was terminated, which immediately ended his long-term disability (LTD) coverage under the employer's group policy.

Two months later, he became totally disabled in a motor vehicle accident.

The employer inadvertently continued paying LTD premiums, and the insurer initially denied the claim based on lack of total disability and late filing, while reserving the right to investigate eligibility.

The plaintiff argued the insurer waived the termination date of the policy.

The court dismissed the action, finding no waiver because the insurer lacked full knowledge of the termination and did not unequivocally intend to relinquish its right to rely on the policy's termination clause.