B. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd.
Wrongful Dismissal: Sexual Harassment & After-Acquired Evidence
Appeal history
- Appeal from: B. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., 1994 CanLII 7390 (ON SC)
Summary
This is an appeal from a wrongful dismissal decision involving a supervisory employee terminated for cause following multiple complaints of sexual harassment. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the employer was justified in terminating the employee for pervasive and inappropriate conduct, and whether the trial judge erred by refusing to consider after-acquired evidence of misconduct. The court affirmed that supervisors are held to higher standards to ensure a harassment-free workplace and that employers may rely on evidence discovered after termination to justify dismissal for cause.
Outcome
employer's appeal allowed; action dismissed
Key Factors
- wrongful dismissal
- sexual harassment
- termination for cause
- after-acquired evidence
- supervisory duty
Related Cases
D. v. Staff Plus et al
2026 ONSC 2084 (CanLII) · 2026-04-27Judicial Review: HRTO Disability Discrimination Dismissal
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability. The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov reasonableness standard, finding that the HRTO's determination that disability was not a factor in the termination was justified, transparent, and intelligible. The court also upheld the HRTO's refusal to admit supplementary evidence and denied the request for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of the judicial review application.
H.E. v. Rogers Communication
2026 ONCA 111 (CanLII) · 2026-02-13Discrimination Tort Claim Struck: Appeal Dismissed
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motions judge's decision striking an applicant's claim for discrimination. The plaintiff interviewed for a job with Rogers Communication in 2015 and sued the company in 2022, alleging he was asked discriminatory questions during the interview. The motions judge dismissed the action because there is no common law tort of discrimination and the two-year limitation period had expired. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that human rights legislation is the exclusive remedy for such claims and the limitation period barred the action. The plaintiff's action remains dismissed.
T. v. Good Health Walk-In Clinic
2026 ONSC 453 (CanLII) · 2026-01-28Judicial Review: HRTO Misgendering & Race Discrimination
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision concerning allegations of discrimination based on trans status and race. The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's reasons regarding the misgendering claim unreasonable due to a fundamental gap in analysis, setting that part of the decision aside and remitting it. However, the Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the race and colour discrimination claim, finding no material facts linking the actions to race.
M. v. Department of National Defence
2025 ONSC 7256 (CanLII) · 2025-12-30M. v. DND: FPSLRA Bar on Harassment Claims
This is a procedural motion ruling in a wrongful dismissal and harassment case brought by a federal public sector employee against the Department of National Defence. The court addressed whether negligence and harassment claims were barred by the statutory grievance regime under the FPSLRA, characterizing them as employment disputes precluded from court action. Additionally, the court struck the plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution due to insufficient pleadings and refused leave to amend.
G. v D.
2025 CanLII 150071 (ON SCSM) · 2025-12-19Federal Public Service: Civil Action Barred by FPSLRA
This is a procedural ruling on a motion to strike a civil action brought by a federal public service employee. The court determined that the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) provides an exclusive grievance regime, thereby barring civil suits for disputes relating to terms and conditions of employment, including allegations of intentional torts and Charter breaches. The claim was struck without leave to amend, and costs were awarded.
More Ontario employment decisions from the 1990s
This summary was written by AI from the published decision and its headnote. It is not an official version of the decision; read the full text on CanLII before relying on it. This is legal information, not legal advice. Ontario Severance is an educational tool. If you are facing a serious employment law matter, consult with a qualified employment lawyer in Ontario.