Does Infectious Disease Emergency Leave under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c.41 oust the common law of constructive dismissal or were employees ostensibly placed on leave actually terminated?
In Coutinho v. Ocular Health Centre Ltd., 2021 ONSC 3076 (CanLII), Justice David A. Broad of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the regulatory changes did not oust the common law, meaning that employees objecting to be placed on IDEL could still sue for constructive dismissal damages.
“Is a taxi company liable for a sexual assault allegedly committed by one of its drivers, absent any fault on its part?” That was the question that the Court of Appeal for Ontario answered in the case of Ivic v. Lakovic, 2017 ONCA 446.
The court’s answer, which affirmed an answer from the Ontario Superior Court, was “no”.
When is a non-solicitation provision in an employment contract actually a non-competition agreement? The answer is, when it prevents the employee from “accepting business from” any former corporate accounts or customers.
In a short endorsement, Donaldson Travel Inc. v. Murphy, 2016 ONCA 649, the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed an earlier decision of the Honourable Justice David A. Broad of the Superior Court of Justice, dismissing the plaintiff employer’s claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of confidential information, inducing breach of contract and interference with contractual relations against its former employee travel agent and her new travel agency employer.
One consequence of the increase to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Small Claims Court, from $10,000 to $25,000, is that some litigants – especially those commencing wrongful dismissal actions – are now being told that they are in the ‘wrong place, at the wrong time.’
In a decision released March 16, 2012, Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics, 2012 ONSC 1780, (the facts of which I earlier canvassed in my post titled "No finding of just cause notwithstanding workplace assault") the Honourable Justice David A. Broad held that a plaintiff who won $12,514.00 in a Superior Court action should be denied his costs because he received an amount within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, notwithstanding the fact that when he commenced his case the limit of the Small Claims Court was only $10,000.
In a somewhat surprising decision, (given the propensity with which summary judgment is being sought and granted in Ontario as of late, especially in wrongful dismissal actions,) the Honourable Justice David A. Broad declined a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence of her mitigation efforts, and therefore, on the analysis set out by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764 the Court simply did not have a “full appreciation” upon which it could take a decision.
