In its recent decision Katz et al. v. Clarke, 2019 ONSC 2188, the Ontario Divisional Court set aside an order of a motion judge, granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The decision involves important principles relating to frustration of contract and the duty to accommodate a disabled employee. The Court…
Publication Name: Case In Point
Arbitrator Orders Production of Sensitive Medical Documentation Further to Accommodation Request
In Carleton University and Carleton University Academic Staff Association (March 29, 2019), Arbitrator Picher issued an interim award regarding the production of sensitive medical documents which were needed by the University employer to assess an accommodation request made by a faculty member (grievor). The request was to receive full pay with reduced teaching hours. The…
Appellate Court Considers Cannabis Impairment and Accommodation Issues
In International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1620 v. Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers’ Association Inc., the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador judicially reviewed an arbitration decision in which the key issues were measuring impairment from cannabis use and accommodation obligations. The Arbitrator found that there is currently no way to accurately measure such…
Appellate Court Finds Preferential Treatment of WSIB Claimants in Workplace Not Discriminatory
The Ontario Divisional Court recently released Carter v. FCA Canada Inc and Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, a decision which affirms that differential treatment between employees with work-related injuries and employees with non-work-related injuries is not discriminatory under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code). The applicant, who had a non-work-related injury, sought to return to…
Ontario Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on Deterrence and Sentencing in OHSA Fatality Case
A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Ontario (Labour) v. New Mex Canada Inc., confirms that it will only be in the rarest of cases where a jail sentence is seen to be appropriate in an occupational health and safety case, considering the weight the principle of deterrence should have on sentences given…
No Tort of Harassment in Ontario
In Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), the Ontario Court of Appeal found that a “tort of harassment” does not exist in Ontario. The plaintiff/respondent was hired as a Constable in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in 2005. He was promoted to Corporal in 2009 and then to Sergeant in 2014. In June 2007, he…
Appellate Court Overturns Summary Judgment Decision that Former Employee Owed $20m in Damages to Employer; Matter Remitted for Trial
The decision of a summary judgment motion judge who ordered a former employee to pay his former employer $20 million in damages has been overturned by the Court of Appeal. In Plate v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc., the Court held that the motion judge erred when he found a trial was not necessary and proceeded…
Appellate Court Reviews “Family Status” Test
The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently clarified the meaning and scope of the term “family status” in Envirocon Environmental Services, ULC v. Suen. This case confirmed the Campbell River test, which imposes a higher standard for establishing discrimination than the often-cited Federal Court of Appeal test in Johnstone, adding to the “family status” interpretation…
A Cautionary Tale: Appellate Court Upholds Judgment Against Employer for Punitive Damages, Aggravated Damages and “Unusually High” Costs
In Ruston v. Keddco MFG. (2011) Ltd., 2019 ONCA 125 (CanLII)(Keddco), a unanimous Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a substantial damages and costs award against an employer that breached its “duty of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal.” The Keddco decision serves as an important reminder for employers across Canada…
Notice of Intended Decision Considers Whether Vacation Pay Forms Part of Pensionable Earnings
The Ontario Superintendent of Financial Services (Superintendent) issued a Notice of Intended Decision (NOID) in late 2018 that considered whether vacation pay should be factored into a pension plan’s definition of pensionable earnings. The NOID indicates that, in the absence of clear exclusionary language, the Superintendent will interpret the phrase “base pay” to include vacation…