Stephen J. Moreau

The appellant employee appealed the dismissal of his motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

He argued the motion judge mistranslated a French termination clause in his employment contract and erred in finding it did not contract out of the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the translation error but found it immaterial, as the motion judge correctly understood the clause referred to minimum notice and intended to respect the Act.

Applying deference to the motion judge's contractual interpretation, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant teachers were wrongfully dismissed by the respondent private school.

The motion judge reduced their reasonable notice period from twelve months to six months due to the school's financial difficulties and a presumption about the availability of alternative teaching positions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an employer's financial circumstances are not relevant to determining the reasonable notice period under the Bardal factors.

The twelve-month notice period was restored.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the respondent's claim under Rule 21.

The respondent had pleaded the common employer doctrine against a group of corporate defendants and their operator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the application of the common employer doctrine to operators of a group of common employers is a developing area of law, and it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The court also found the claim was pleaded with sufficient particularity.

The representative plaintiffs in two certified class actions brought a motion to complete the administration of the settlement, discharge the administrator, and approve a cy-près distribution of the remaining $5,373.74 to a charity.

The court granted the discharge but denied the cy-près distribution.

Applying the principle that cy-près should not be used when direct compensation is practicable, the court ordered the remaining funds to be distributed equally among six class members who had submitted late claims due to mail delivery failures.

In this costs endorsement following an employment dispute, the plaintiffs argued they had beaten the defendant's collective settlement offer, while the defendant sought costs consequences under rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the offer should not determine costs, emphasizing that the defendant had lost the fundamental issues at trial and had pursued an uncompromising litigation position inconsistent with the settlement-promoting purpose of the rule.

The court declined to award any costs to the defendant and instead awarded the plaintiffs $42,000, reduced to reflect their limited success on the length of the notice period.

On a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the court held that a series of annual teacher contracts and letters of appointment at a private school did not create fixed-term employment.

Reading the contracts as a whole, and construing ambiguity against the employer, the court found the arrangements contemplated ongoing employment and were contracts of indefinite duration.

The teachers were therefore entitled to common law reasonable notice.

Applying the Bardal factors in light of the school's financial instability, recurring enrolment uncertainty, and the teachers' awareness of that context, the court fixed notice at six months and rejected both mitigation-based reductions and claims for bad faith damages.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator denied procedural fairness by failing to disclose a dispute over the cost of a step progression freeze, making a finding without evidence, and refusing to order production of certain financial source documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's procedures and disclosure rulings were reasonable given the flexible and informal nature of interest arbitration.

The court also found there was sufficient evidence in the parties' briefs to support the arbitrator's findings on the cost of the step progression freeze.

The appellant school board appealed an order requiring it to indemnify the respondent employee for legal costs incurred during a workplace investigation into alleged expense fraud.

The employee's contract contained an indemnity clause for costs related to any 'proceeding', excluding cases of dishonesty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie evidence of dishonesty was presented, the merits of the allegations were for arbitration, and the formal workplace investigation constituted a 'proceeding' under the broad wording of the contract.

Following reasons on a motion concerning undertakings and production of documents in a wrongful dismissal action, the court determined costs and clarified a prior order.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to amend the earlier order to include travel-related records evidencing the employee’s attendance at certain meetings as the employer’s sole representative.

In assessing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court found the motion moderately complex and necessary for the employee to advance the claim, particularly given delayed responses to undertakings.

The employee’s bill of costs was largely accepted with partial indemnity adjustments to counsel’s hourly rate.

Costs were awarded for fees, disbursements, and applicable HST, with no additional costs for the written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought advancement and indemnification of legal costs under an employment contract while facing disciplinary proceedings arising from an internal workplace investigation.

The court considered whether the matter could proceed by application under Rule 14.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether the contractual indemnification clause applied to costs incurred during the investigation stage.

The court held that the presumption of good faith applies and that the respondent had not established a strong prima facie case of dishonesty sufficient to trigger the contractual exclusion.

Interpreting the contract broadly, the court found that the internal investigation and related disciplinary process constituted a “proceeding” within the meaning of the indemnification clause.

The respondent was therefore obligated to advance and reimburse the applicant’s legal costs pending the outcome of arbitration.

Two related class proceedings alleged that employees transferred from municipal home‑care providers to Community Care Access Centres suffered pension losses when their OMERS or VON pensions were replaced with HOOPP after a government restructuring of home‑care services.

The plaintiffs advanced claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contractual undertaking against the province.

Following mediation and negotiations, the parties reached a settlement providing $6.5 million for class members, along with amounts for class counsel fees and administration.

The court reviewed the settlement under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and considered the risks of establishing liability and damages, the complexity of actuarial loss calculations, and the absence of objections from class members.

The settlement and proposed class counsel fees were found to fall within a reasonable range and to be in the best interests of the class.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision imposing a first collective agreement under the Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.

The employer argued the board exceeded its jurisdiction by implicitly treating it and a related hospital as a single employer, and that the wage and benefit increases were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board merely used the hospital as a comparator for wages and benefits, which was within its jurisdiction.

The court also held that the board's decision on wages and benefits was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that stayed their action for unpaid health and welfare benefits to allow the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The dispute arose following a union raid.

The Divisional Court confirmed it had jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of the Small Claims Court but dismissed the application, agreeing that the OLRB, which has exclusive jurisdiction over labour relations issues, should first determine its jurisdiction over the matter.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction reinstating two students expelled from a private school for possessing and consuming marijuana on campus.

The expulsions were imposed pursuant to the school’s zero‑tolerance drug policy contained in contractual enrollment documents.

The applicants argued that the court had jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act or, alternatively, through contract law, and that procedural fairness required notice and a hearing before expulsion.

The court held that the decision of a private school to expel students was not the exercise of a statutory power of decision and therefore was not subject to judicial review under the JRPA.

Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test, the court found no serious issue to be tried because the contractual documents clearly incorporated the zero‑tolerance policy and the misconduct was admitted.

The motion for interlocutory reinstatement was dismissed.

The employer brought an application for judicial review to quash an arbitration award that found supervisors were included in the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the arbitration board chair denied natural justice by circulating a draft award without a prior meeting of the panel, and that the majority's interpretation of the collective agreement was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no agreement to hold a meeting prior to drafting, that the employer nominee had an opportunity to participate, and that the majority's interpretation of the recognition clause was reasonable.

The Ontario Nurses Association brought a motion to review and set aside a decision of Molloy J., which struck out an affidavit containing correspondence between an arbitration chair and the employer's nominee.

The underlying judicial review application by the Board of Health alleged a denial of natural justice because the arbitration board did not discuss the evidence before the chair issued a proposed decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, agreeing with Molloy J. that the correspondence was unnecessary to introduce as evidence because the facts it sought to establish were already addressed in the chair's reasons and were not disputed.

The Ontario Review Board ordered an independent psychiatric assessment for an accused and directed the Attorney General to pay the costs.

The Attorney General successfully applied to quash the funding order.

The Board appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board lacks jurisdiction under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code to order the Attorney General or any other party to pay for an assessment, and that the Board must bear the costs through its own budget.

The appellant appealed an order denying an adjournment and finding no good defence on the merits.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion to deny the adjournment and agreed that the appellant failed to show a good defence on the merits.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a suspension.

The misconduct related to administering Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy to a mentally disabled patient without proper consent, which was found to be outside the scope of chiropractic practice.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by making findings on uncharged matters, failing to give adequate notice, and erring in its credibility assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had adequate notice through pre-hearing disclosure and that the Committee's credibility findings and penalty were reasonable.

The appellant, who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, applied for a declaration restricting the interpretation of the victim notification requirements under s. 672.5(13.2) of the Criminal Code and challenging their constitutional validity.

The Ontario Review Board had previously adjourned his hearings to notify potential victims, but eventually granted him an absolute discharge when no victims were found.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for mootness, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case because the appellant had already been discharged and there was no factual record involving actual victims to properly determine the statutory and constitutional issues.