Today, the Court of Appeal for Ontario rendered its long anticipated decision in Blue Mountain Resorts Limited v. Ontario (Labour). It overturned a finding of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, upheld on judicial review by the Divisional Court, that the drowning of a Blue Mountain hotel guest in the hotel’s swimming pool was reportable under…
Publication Name: Case In Point
Court of Appeal for Ontario Finds Restrictive Covenants Unreasonable and Unenforceable
In Martin v. ConCreate USL Limited Partnership, a decision released yesterday, the Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the restrictive covenants included in sale of business agreements were unenforceable. Among other things, the Court found that the duration for the covenants was unreasonable because it was “for an indeterminate period, and there is no fixed,…
Court of Appeal Upholds Finding that One Health and Safety Violation Did Not Constitute Just Cause for Termination
In its recent decision Plester v. PolyOne Canada Inc., the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that one violation of a health and safety rule did not constitute just cause for the termination of a long term supervisory employee. The plaintiff was employed as a line supervisor and had worked for the employer for 17…
Supreme Court of Canada Renders Decision in Indalex
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers. The decision contains important findings with respect to, among other matters, the fiduciary duties of plan administrators, the reach of the statutory deemed trust provisions of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act, and the priority given to pension…
Indalex Pension Decision to be Rendered Friday
On Friday, February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada will be rendering its decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC et al. v. United Steelworkers et al. The appeal relates to an April 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which granted “super-priority” to pension funding deficits in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceeding….
Can Hospitals Impose a Dress Code that Prohibits Large Tattoos and Excessive Body Piercings in a Unionized Environment?
Apparently not, according to Arbitrator Slotnick’s recent award in Ottawa Hospital v CUPE. This award concluded that a hospital’s dress code policy was unenforceable as it required employees to cover up large tattoos and prohibited “visible, excessive body piercings.” The hospital argued that the dress code was minimally intrusive and its goal was to improve…
An Employment Contract, A Without Cause Termination and the Availability of “Unjust Dismissal” Protection
Klein and The Royal Canadian Mint, a recent adjudication award made under the Canada Labour Code, affirms the proposition that the unjust dismissal provisions do not protect all employees from termination without cause, particularly where such terminations are conducted in accordance with a binding employment contract. In this case, the complainant had signed an employment…
HRTO Hearing to Proceed Despite Monetary Offer of Compensation by Respondent
In Sears v. Honda of Canada Mfg., an interim decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”), the HRTO rejected a respondent employer’s proposal that it pay the applicant the monetary compensation sought and that the HRTO then decline to hear the matter further as doing so would serve no useful purpose. The applicant…
BYOD Policy – Charting A Good Path To Higher Ground
The desire to use personal mobile devices to undertake work has risen like the incoming tide. Employers must make a choice: turn the tide on the use of personal devices by re-enforcing an outright ban or chart a thoughtful path to higher “Bring Your Own Device” or “BYOD” ground. Employers that do neither will sink…
Numerous Errors by Justice of the Peace Result in Overturned OHSA Conviction
In R. v. 679052 Ontario Limited (c.o.b. Auction Reconditioning Centre), the Ontario Court of Justice reaffirmed that active supervision of an employee is not required at all times. Moreover, where an employee is properly instructed not to do a task and the employer has no reason to believe the employee will do that task, the…