Stephen F. Gleave

Two insurance salespeople left a brokerage, taking their books of business with them.

The brokerage sued for breach of contract and unlawful conduct conspiracy.

The trial judge found one salesperson breached an oral agreement to purchase his book of business upon departure, and found the other liable for conspiracy.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the breach of contract finding but overturned the conspiracy finding, noting the trial judge failed to apply the requirement that a conspirator must engage in unlawful conduct or intend to harm the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for breaching a non-competition clause in his employment contract and ordering him to repay a $20,000 non-compete payment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in interpreting the contract.

The appellant had met the conditions for the payment by remaining employed for one year and not competing during that time.

Although the non-competition clause was enforceable and breached later, the respondent proved no damages, so the action was dismissed.

The appellants, former commercial insurance salespeople for the respondent, resigned and joined a competitor, subsequently soliciting clients from the respondent.

The respondent successfully sued for breach of a restrictive covenant at trial.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the clause was an unenforceable non-competition clause rather than a non-solicitation clause, as it contained no geographical limit and broadly prohibited conducting business.

The appeal was allowed and the trial judgment was set aside.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal adding a former human resources administrator as a respondent party to an unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the Tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the administrator as a party, as the complaint contained no allegations that she personally breached the Agricultural Employees Protection Act.

The Court dismissed the bias allegations, finding that the applicants had waived their objections and failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee without just cause and awarding Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of wrongful dismissal, noting that while the trial judge did not explicitly refer to the McKinley framework, his factual findings supported the conclusion that the misconduct did not warrant dismissal for cause.

However, the Court set aside the award of Wallace damages because the trial judge based the award on serious findings of misconduct (conspiracy and bad faith counterclaim) that were neither pleaded nor argued by the respondent, depriving the appellant of an opportunity to respond.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to close the Collège des Grands Lacs, a francophone college.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to the applicants' undue delay of 29 months in perfecting the application, which caused significant prejudice.

In the alternative, the court found that the Minister did not breach the unwritten constitutional principle of protection of minorities, as the college was failing and alternative francophone education was arranged.

The court also held that the Minister had the statutory authority to close the college and the decision was not patently unreasonable.

The applicants, parents of children at Arthur District High School, sought judicial review of the Upper Grand District School Board's decision to close the school.

They argued the Board failed to comply with statutory duties and its own accommodation review policy, thereby denying the community meaningful participation in the decision-making process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had considered numerous alternatives, provided necessary information, and afforded the community a fair opportunity to participate in the consultation process.

The appellant employer appealed a motion judge's order regarding the plaintiff employee's claim for long-term disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in finding the collective agreement's benefits terms fell within Brown & Beatty's third category.

The language of the collective agreement and Letter of Understanding clearly incorporated the benefits plan into the collective agreement, meaning disputes over entitlement must be submitted to arbitration.

The appeal was allowed and the civil action against the employer was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the court received submissions to determine the quantum of costs payable to the self-represented respondent.

The respondent claimed $7,351, while the appellant argued for $1,100.

The Court of Appeal fixed costs at $3,500 on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the award is limited to costs in the Court of Appeal and that certain claimed disbursements, such as medications, are not recoverable under the Tariff.

The appellant school board appealed a decision refusing to stay the respondent's Small Claims Court action.

The appellant argued that the respondent was arguably a member of the union, and an arbitrator should determine if the collective agreement applied under s. 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' conclusion that the respondent was not a union member, as the appellant failed to meet its evidentiary onus.

In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal applied Rule 49.10(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant (defendant at trial) had made a pre-trial offer to settle that exceeded the quantum of damages ultimately awarded by the court.

Consequently, the respondent (plaintiff) was awarded party-and-party costs up to the date of the offer, and the appellant was awarded party-and-party costs from that date to the conclusion of the trial, as well as the costs of the appeal.

The respondent employee was wrongfully dismissed after refusing to relocate to Ohio.

The trial judge awarded damages based on an 18-month notice period, including $49,293.97 for pension loss, and found the respondent had properly mitigated his damages by starting a consulting business.

The employer appealed the mitigation finding and the pension loss award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the mitigation finding but allowed the appeal regarding the pension loss.

The Court held that the trial judge erred by failing to account for the pension benefits the respondent received during the notice period, which actually increased the overall present value of his pension, and by improperly grossing up the award for tax purposes.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that it was the successor to the City of Waterloo Staff Association.

The Board found that while the Staff Association met the definition of a 'trade union', it was not a 'bargaining agent' capable of transferring bargaining rights.

The Board concluded that the Staff Association's formation and administration were riddled with employer support, including mandatory membership and dues deduction, and that it had never acted as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees.

As the Staff Association did not hold bargaining rights at the time of the alleged merger, the application was dismissed.

The applicant school board applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the number and descriptions of bargaining units following the amalgamation of three predecessor boards.

The Board determined that bus drivers should be included in the larger custodial and maintenance bargaining unit to avoid fragmentation.

The Board also determined that educational assistants should form a separate bargaining unit, given their distinct skill set and the potential for labour relations problems if included in the office and clerical unit.

Representation votes were ordered for three of the four established bargaining units.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred when the predecessor hospital transferred its laboratory services to the successor hospital.

The hospitals conceded the sale but argued that the operations and employees were intermingled, justifying the termination of the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found that intermingling had occurred and that the union's proposed bargaining unit, limited to the 'stat' laboratory at the predecessor hospital, was not appropriate due to the integration of the services.

Given that the unionized employees constituted a small minority of the successor's paramedical staff, the Board declined to order a representation vote and declared the union's bargaining rights terminated effective the date of the sale.

The applicant union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by denying recognition bonus payments to employees who participated in a lawful strike, while paying the bonus to employees who crossed the picket line.

The employer argued that the bonus was tied to production and was reduced for any absence, relying on its discretion under the plan.

The Board found that the employer had not uniformly applied the reduction to other absences, such as a subsequent sit-in by non-striking employees.

The Board concluded that the employer's exercise of discretion was motivated by anti-union animus and discriminated against the striking employees contrary to section 67(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer was ordered to compensate the striking employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's hotel.

The parties disputed the composition of the bargaining unit, specifically whether eleven individuals exercised managerial functions or performed security services such that they should be excluded under the Labour Relations Act, and whether two individuals shared a community of interest with the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties and responsibilities of the challenged employees, including Sous-Chefs, Banquet Captain, Acting Manager of the Fitness Centre, Chief Steward, Assistant Housekeeper, and Hosts/Hostesses.

The Board concluded that none of the challenged individuals exercised managerial functions within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

The Board also found that the two individuals challenged on community of interest grounds shared a greater community of interest with the bargaining unit than with the office and sales staff.

All challenged individuals were included in the bargaining unit.