4 total
Long-term employee constructively dismissed via demotion awarded 28 months' notice and $25,000 in moral damages.
The plaintiff, a 58-year-old employee with 34 years of service, sued his employer for constructive dismissal after the employer unilaterally changed his job description, effectively demoting him from a sales and service technician to a project technician on the plant floor.
The court found that the unilateral change breached the employment contract and constituted constructive dismissal.
The court awarded the plaintiff 28 months' reasonable notice due to exceptional circumstances, including the employer's bad faith conduct.
The court also found that the plaintiff reasonably mitigated his damages and awarded $25,000 in aggravated/moral damages for the employer's bad faith in the manner of dismissal.
Substituting alternative fuel in a cement plant does not constitute a new waste disposal land use.
The appellant cement manufacturer proposed substituting alternative fuel derived from post-recycling and post-composting materials for conventional fossil fuel.
The respondent municipality argued this constituted a new land use as a 'waste disposal area' under its zoning by-law, requiring an amendment.
The application judge agreed with the municipality.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the productive use of these materials as fuel in an existing cement manufacturing process does not constitute dumping, destroying, or storing waste, and therefore does not create a new land use.
Tenant's appeal of eviction order dismissed as no error of law found in Board's decision.
The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing the Board erred in finding the landlord acted in good faith and that the notice of termination was sufficient.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Member's decision.
The Court also dismissed the tenant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting it would not have changed the finding of good faith.
Judicial review allowed; statutory time limit for employer response in union certification is directory, not mandatory.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to certify a union without considering the employer's late-filed response.
The Board had concluded that the word 'shall' in section 128.1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was mandatory, precluding it from considering information filed after the two-day statutory time limit.
The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.
The Court held that the Board erred in its interpretation, finding that 'shall' in this context is directory and that the Board has the discretion to remedy the breach and consider late-filed information.
The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.
