The case of Yenovkian v. Gulian is a significant case that, for the first time in Canada, has recognized a new privacy tort – “publicity placing a person in a false light.” The decision was decided by Justice Kristjanson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and released in late 2019. The case arose out…
Publication Name: Case In Point
B.C. Tribunal Finds that Reduced Benefits for Employees Over Age 65 under Employer’s Benefit Plan is not Discriminatory
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) recently held that the decision to provide reduced benefits to employees over age 65 under an employer-sponsored benefit plan is not discrimination under the British Columbia Human Rights Code (Code) if the reduced benefits are provided as part of a “bona fide group or employee insurance plan” within…
Ontario Superior Court Affirms that Pension Payments to a Non-Member Spouse Cease Upon Death
In Meloche v. Meloche, the Ontario Superior Court held that, following a pension division under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (PBA), payments do not continue to the estate of a non-member spouse who predeceases the member spouse. The parties separated in 2017 after 30 years of marriage. The respondent teacher retired in 2015, and elected…
Appellate Court: Employee Can’t Transform Employer’s Supportive Leniency (Allowing Flexibility in Her Start Time) into Contractual Obligation
The Ontario Divisional Court recently considered the issue of whether flexibility offered by an employer to an employee alters a fundamental term of the employee’s employment contract. In Peternel v. Custom Granite & Marble Ltd., the Divisional Court upheld a trial judge decision that the employee’s 8:30 a.m. start time at work was an existing…
$1.27 Million Damages Award a Reminder to Employers of Perils Associated with Fixed Term Contracts
In McGuinty v. 1845035 Ontario Inc. (McGuinty Funeral Home), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded a plaintiff over $1.27 million in damages for constructive dismissal after only one year had elapsed of a 10 year consulting services agreement (Agreement). In the absence of a cancellation provision, the defendant was obligated to pay the Agreement…
Appellate Court Considers Contractual Rights Upon Termination
The Court of Appeal recently considered the issue of an employee’s contractual rights versus his common law rights upon the termination of his employment. In Mikelsteins v. Morrison Hershfield Limited, the defendant employer appealed a partial summary judgment that had awarded the plaintiff, a former employee, an increased value for shares that had been bought…
Appellate Court Considers Sale of Business and Duty to Mitigate
In Dussault v Imperial Oil Limited, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that two employees did not fail to mitigate their damages when they refused offers of employment from the purchaser of a former employer, as the employment that was offered was not “comparable.” Background In 2016, Imperial Oil sold its retail business to Mac’s…
Appellate Court Finds Waiver of Common Law Notice Valid, Considers Continuity of Service under ESA
In Ariss v NORR Limited Architects & Engineers, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a decision of a motion judge who considered the appellant’s entitlements under the common law and the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) upon termination. Background In 1986, the appellant began employment with a company which was sold to the respondent employer…
WSIA “Employment Function” Mental Stress Exclusion Considered by Appellate Court
In Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), the Divisional Court recently overturned a 2017 Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) decision that found the grievor’s right to a workplace free of harassment had been violated but that it had no jurisdiction to award damages…
Appellate Court Considers “Appropriate Means” Test Under Limitations Act and Reliance on “Non-Traditional” Expertise
In Presley v. Van Dusen, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided guidance on the statutory limitation period and the reliance on “non-traditional” experts. Background The appellant homeowners retained Van Dusen to install a septic system in 2010. There were problems with the operation of the system. The appellants called Van Dusen and he appeared to…