Walter T. Langley

Donald Schultz, a director at Canada Lands Company CLC, was terminated with cause for alleged misconduct during procurement processes.

The court found that while some of Schultz's actions were inappropriate (e.g., providing a draft recommendation memo with confidential competitor information, attending social events with proponents during procurement), they did not constitute misconduct severe enough to warrant termination with cause, especially considering mitigating factors such as tight timelines, the employer's inconsistent policy enforcement, and lack of proper investigation.

The court awarded Schultz 12 months' reasonable notice, benefits, and a portion of his bonus, but denied moral and punitive damages.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code or deferred, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with by the WSIB.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the WSIB only determined whether the disabilities were work-related, whereas the Code requires accommodation regardless of cause.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, concluding that the WSIB proceeding would not address the accommodation issue and any overlap in damages could be addressed by either body.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a motion judge’s refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing a professional negligence claim against a solicitor.

The claim alleged that the solicitor failed to advise the plaintiff regarding a limitation period for commencing an action against a disability insurer.

The court considered whether the absence of expert evidence required dismissal of the claim at the summary judgment stage.

It held that expert evidence is not invariably required when the moving party has also failed to file such evidence and the evidentiary record does not permit a full appreciation of the issues.

Leave to appeal was denied because the motion judge reasonably concluded that the factual record required further development at trial.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claim arising from unclaimed bank draft proceeds that had been transferred to the Bank of Canada pursuant to the Bank Act after remaining unclaimed for ten years.

The plaintiff had recovered the proceeds from the Bank of Canada but claimed damages for lost investment opportunities and expenses incurred in proving entitlement to the funds.

The court held that s. 438(2) of the Bank Act releases a bank from all liability “in respect of” an instrument once the unclaimed proceeds are transferred to the Bank of Canada.

The plaintiff’s claims for costs incurred in recovering the funds and alleged lost interest arose from the bank draft itself and therefore fell within the statutory release.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

The defendants, a lawyer and her law firm retained by a union, brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim arising from the plaintiff’s lost opportunity to sue for long‑term disability benefits.

The moving parties argued that their retainer was limited to advising the union on accommodation and grievance matters and did not include pursuing litigation against the disability insurer before the limitation period expired.

The plaintiff argued that a solicitor may owe a duty of care even absent a formal solicitor‑client relationship where a relationship of proximity and reliance exists.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not permit a full appreciation of the factual circumstances surrounding the meetings and communications between the plaintiff and the lawyer.

As a result, whether a duty of care arose could not be determined without trial.

On a Rule 21 motion, the moving parties sought to stay or dismiss a negligence and breach of contract action for want of court jurisdiction.

The court applied the essential character framework and considered whether the dispute arose from collective agreement administration or from alleged promises and representations made outside that framework.

The court held that the pleaded claim, including alleged negligent misrepresentation and reliance relating to disability litigation steps and a missed limitation period, was arguable as a civil negligence claim not confined to labour board exclusivity.

The motion to stay or dismiss was therefore refused, and directions were set for further submissions.

The plaintiff, former General Manager of the Ottawa Senators, sued the team's executives for misrepresentation regarding his compensation.

The appellant moved to stay the action and refer the dispute to arbitration by the NHL Commissioner, relying on the NHL Constitution and the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff was not a party to an arbitration agreement, as the employment contract did not expressly require him to submit disputes to arbitration or bind him to the NHL Constitution's arbitration provisions.

Appeals and cross-appeals arising from a lengthy construction-defect trial concerning premature deterioration of residential concrete foundations caused by defective concrete supplied for homes built in Eastern Ontario.

The principal dispute on appeal concerned whether the trial judge erred in accepting the theory that Type C fly ash supplied by the cement manufacturer caused the failure, rather than the aggregate and water-content theory advanced by the manufacturer.

The court upheld the trial judge’s negligence findings against both the concrete supplier and the cement manufacturer, rejected allegations of bias and procedural unfairness, and dismissed the supplier’s claim for full indemnity.

The court also upheld the trial costs ruling requiring the manufacturer to bear 90% of costs, while varying the judgment only to reflect settlements regarding detached garage damages and prejudgment interest.

Homeowners and the Ontario New Home Warranty Program brought actions against a concrete supplier (Bertrand) and a cement manufacturer (Lafarge) for defective concrete foundations caused by the introduction of fly ash.

The trial judge found Lafarge 80% liable and Bertrand 20% liable in negligence for failing to conduct adequate testing.

Lafarge appealed the liability findings and the costs award (which ordered Lafarge to pay 90% of costs due to its conduct at trial).

Bertrand cross-appealed seeking full indemnity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and cross-appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings on liability, apportionment, and costs, while varying the judgment slightly to reflect settlements reached during the appeal regarding prejudgment interest and one homeowner's garage.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute a collective agreement.

The Board previously found a violation and convened a hearing to determine the remedy.

At the hearing, the employer requested an adjournment and supplementary reasons, both of which the Board denied, noting the delay already incurred and the lack of circumstances beyond the employer's control.

On the issue of remedy, the Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreement that had been agreed upon, with retroactive effect to September 8, 1987, to restore the parties to the position they would have been in but for the violation.

The applicant employers' organization applied for accreditation in the construction industry under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization and that the proposed unit of employers was appropriate for collective bargaining.

The Board determined that the applicant represented a majority of the employers in the unit, who in turn employed a majority of the employees affected.

Although all statutory requirements for accreditation were met, the Board withheld the issuance of the certificate pending a determination on whether it would continue its practice of compiling a Final Schedule 'F' of employers.

The union applied for certification of a unit of sheet metal workers in the construction industry.

The Board excluded two individuals from the bargaining unit because they were not lawfully engaged in the compulsory certified trade of sheet metal worker under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act.

The Board also declined to give weight to an employee petition opposing certification, finding that the working foreman who circulated it made statements that would give employees reasonable cause to fear employer reprisal.

As the union had the support of more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit, the Board issued certificates to the union.

The applicant union sought certification for security guards employed by the respondent.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that over 90% of the respondent's security services were provided to Federal Government departments and agencies, including tasks essential to their operation such as emergency evacuations and guarding sensitive areas.

Applying constitutional principles, the Board concluded that these services play a vital and integral role in federal operations, placing the labour relations of these employees within federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Quebec-based union, applied for certification to represent employees in Ontario.

The respondent challenged the applicant's status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, arguing it had not followed proper steps in its formation, had discriminatory constitutional provisions, and lacked a viable presence in Ontario.

The Board found that the applicant had taken the necessary steps to establish itself as a trade union, that its constitutional provisions did not preclude such a finding, and that it was capable of carrying out the functions of a trade union in Ontario despite its headquarters being in Quebec.

The applicant was found to be a trade union within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent nursing home.

Following a representation vote, two employees who were on maternity leave objected that they had been omitted from the voters' list and were unable to vote.

The Board held that employees on maternity leave are eligible to vote because their prospects for continued employment are sufficiently certain.

However, the Board declined to set aside the vote, finding that one employee failed to take reasonable steps to inquire about her eligibility prior to the vote, and the other employee's ballot could not have mathematically affected the outcome.

The union was certified for the full-time bargaining unit.

The applicant employer filed applications for a consent to prosecute and a cease-and-desist direction against the respondent union and several individuals, alleging an unlawful strike arising from picketing at the applicant's premises.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding that no employees failed to perform their scheduled shifts and therefore no "strike" within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act had occurred.

A dissenting board member would have granted the requested order, arguing that the concerted activity was designed to restrict or limit output by dissuading the public from patronizing the restaurant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of dependent contractors working as oil burner servicemen for the respondent.

The respondent argued the individuals were independent contractors.

The Board applied the statutory definition of 'dependent contractor' under section 1(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the contractors were economically dependent on the respondent and that their relationship more closely resembled that of an employee than an independent contractor, the Board concluded they were dependent contractors.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule a further hearing regarding the voluntariness of statements of desire filed by some contractors.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint regarding the discharge of a key union organizer.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The Board found the petition was not proven to be voluntary due to the presence of a management member during its signing, and certified the union without a vote.

Regarding the discharge, the Board found the employer proved the employee was fired for an unauthorized after-hours entry onto company property, not for his union activities.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.