Stephen J. Moreau

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment claiming constructive dismissal after his employer unilaterally cancelled his company vehicle benefit.

The court found the cancellation constituted a significant reduction in compensation and amounted to constructive dismissal.

The employment contract's termination clause was deemed void for ambiguity regarding statutory minimums.

The court set a reasonable notice period of 10 months, but reduced it by 30% to 7 months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by moving away from the job market.

The parent company was found to be a common employer.

Damages were awarded in the amount of $56,025.

Air Canada applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union grievance.

The arbitrator had directed Air Canada to stop applying the off-duty status provision of the collective agreement unless it established a discontinuation of its revenue operations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that Air Canada failed to establish a continued 90% reduction in business as of January 2021 was reasonable and supported by the record.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against Ontario for the early cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot Program.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the certification judge erred by engaging in a merits-based analysis of the breach of contract claim rather than applying the 'plain and obvious' test under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the negligence, breach of undertaking, and Charter s. 7 claims, finding that the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision immune from negligence liability and that the Charter claim failed to plead the requisite principles of fundamental justice.

Farah Rahman appealed a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had found her employment contracts' termination provisions valid under the ESA and that only one entity, CDAI, was her employer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the "just cause" termination provision in the employment contract violated the ESA by allowing termination without notice for conduct less than "wilful misconduct" rendering all termination provisions void.

The Court also found that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors in determining the employer, concluding that the corporate respondents were common employers due to their high level of integration and control over Ms. Rahman.

The case was remitted to the Superior Court for damages quantification.

The defendants moved to dismiss the proposed class action for delay under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff failed to file her certification motion record or establish a court-ordered timetable by the one-year anniversary of the action's commencement.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that a vague direction to file 'when she can' constituted a timetable, emphasizing that section 29.1 is mandatory and must be strictly applied to advance class action litigation.

The motion was granted and the proposed class proceeding was dismissed.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion to approve a class action settlement regarding unpaid overtime and holiday pay for television production workers misclassified as independent contractors.

The settlement provided for a $1 million payment if a proposed collective agreement was ratified, or $2.5 million if it was not.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting it avoided significant litigation risks regarding certification and individual damages proof.

The court also approved a 30% contingency fee for class counsel and a $7,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff due to her exceptional involvement in collective bargaining.

The Court of Appeal heard motions for leave to intervene from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) in a class action appeal concerning the Basic Income Pilot Project.

The CCLA's unopposed motion was granted, allowing it to file a factum and present oral arguments under specific terms.

The ISAC's motion was dismissed without costs because its direct involvement in shaping the factual matrix of the Basic Income Pilot Project, including consultations and advice to participants, made it too closely associated with the potential class members and the underlying factual issues, thus compromising its role as an intervener.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the termination provisions in her employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and were therefore void.

The court found that the plaintiff, a sophisticated employee who received independent legal advice, entered into an agreement that explicitly incorporated ESA minimums and provided greater benefits in certain circumstances.

The court held that the 'just cause' provision did not contravene the ESA and dismissed the action against the parent and affiliate companies, finding no joint employer relationship.

The termination provisions were upheld as valid.

The plaintiff moved to enforce a settlement agreement purportedly reached via email correspondence between counsel following a full-day mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued the emails only represented an 'agreement to agree' and that the settlement was conditional on Board approval of an additional stock option grant, which was denied.

The court found that the parties had agreed on all essential terms and that the defendant's Board had no reasonable basis to decline the stock option grant.

The motion was granted, and the settlement agreement was ordered to be enforced.

The Federal Court approved a $1,900,000 settlement agreement in a reverse class proceeding involving former directors of bankrupt Aveos Fleet Performance Inc. and its former employees.

The dispute concerned payment orders for unpaid wages and compensation.

The Court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it provided approximately 69% to 100% recovery for the employees' admitted claims without legal fees deducted.

This case involves a motion for default judgment brought by the plaintiffs against the Crown (Ontario Ministry of Labour) following the death of Raymond Campeau in a mining accident.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence by Ministry of Labour inspectors for failing to ensure compliance with safety orders.

Ontario was noted in default after repeatedly failing to respond to the statement of claim and court orders.

The court found Ontario liable, ruling that the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, did not bar the action as it concerned the negligent operational implementation of a regulatory decision, not the decision itself.

Damages were assessed for loss of services, income, guidance, care, companionship, and pain and suffering.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for damages resulting from the early termination of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of undertaking, negligence, breach of public law duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the relationship was not contractual, the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision protected by common law and statutory immunity, and there is no constitutional right to the continuation of a government program.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that the termination clause in his employment contract was unenforceable.

The court found the termination clause violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000, by improperly combining notice and severance pay and by contracting around the "willful misconduct" standard for just cause, rendering the entire contract void.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the plaintiff four months of common law reasonable notice, plus benefits, less amounts already paid and mitigated earnings, but declined to award a discretionary bonus.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff and defendant brought a joint motion to terminate the administration of a class action settlement process.

The settlement had provided for sickness benefits for claimants who were ill while on parental leave.

The Administrator and Monitor filed reports indicating the successful and timely implementation of the claims process.

The Court granted the motion, discharging the Administrator, Monitor, and Class Counsel, and terminating the review process.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for consent certification of a class action for settlement purposes, approval of the settlement agreement, approval of class counsel fees and disbursements, approval of a representative plaintiff honorarium, and discontinuance of the action for online-only teachers.

The class action alleged misclassification of teachers as independent contractors, leading to unpaid Employment Standards Act entitlements.

The court approved all requested relief, finding the settlement fair and reasonable, the cy-près distribution appropriate, and the fees and honorarium justified given the risks and efforts involved.

The plaintiff, a 43-year-old grader operator with 15 years of service, moved for summary judgment on a wrongful dismissal claim against the Township.

The court determined a reasonable notice period of 15 months, rejecting the defendant's argument of inadequate mitigation efforts due to insufficient evidence.

The plaintiff's claim for general damages for bad faith dismissal was dismissed, as the Township's failure to continue benefits was not deemed bad faith, and an employee's defamatory statement was outside the scope of employment and lacked proven reputational harm.

Damages were calculated for lost wages, overtime, benefits, and pension, but not for lost vacation pay.

The complainant was placed on an administrative suspension with pay pending an investigation into allegations of time theft.

The suspension letter advised he would not be eligible for overtime.

He filed a complaint regarding the loss of overtime pay.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was not filed within the mandatory 14-day timeline under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found that the complainant became aware of the circumstances giving rise to his complaint when he was initially suspended and told he was ineligible for overtime, not when the employer later confirmed he would not receive overtime pay.

As the notice was filed beyond the 14-day period, the Board lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment dated September 26, 2017.

The appellants challenged the lower court decision, and the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of costs for the motion below.

The parties agreed that the costs determination should be remitted back to the trial judge for decision at a later time, pending clarification of the value of the claims and the effect of any Rule 49 settlement offers.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The court found the employment agreement's termination clause to be unclear and incomplete, thus entitling the plaintiff to common law reasonable notice.

The court awarded 22 months' notice, determining the plaintiff held a senior executive role.

It also ruled that the Ontario Employment Standards Act applied to the calculation of lost benefits, despite the plaintiff working in California, due to an Ontario choice-of-law clause in the agreement, rejecting the defendant's public policy argument.

The valuation of lost benefits was deferred for further resolution, and mitigation income was partially offset by $30,000 USD.

This appeal concerns the closure of a manufacturing plant and the resulting mass termination of employees.

The central issues relate to the timing of Form 1 notice requirements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the effect of overtime hours on working notice, and the validity of termination notices for employees retained beyond the statutory 13-week temporary work period.

The employer gave employees over one year's notice of termination but failed to file the required Form 1 notice with the director until more than a year later.

The motion judge found the employer's entire notice period invalid.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Form 1 notice requirement arises only at the beginning of the statutory minimum notice period, not when the employer gives notice to employees.

However, the court upheld findings regarding overtime worked in violation of the ESA and the requirement for fresh notice when temporary work exceeds 13 weeks.