Age Discrimination — Ontario Employment Law

M. v. IBM Canada Ltd.

Systemic Age Discrimination: Motion to Strike Pleadings

This is an interlocutory motion to strike pleadings in a wrongful dismissal and human rights action against IBM Canada Ltd. The central issue was whether allegations of systemic age discrimination against executive-level employees and references to the termination of other employees were relevant, provable, or constituted an abuse of process. The court applied Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if these pleadings should be struck for being overly broad or irrelevant.

U. v. Dufferin Aggregates, a division of CRH Canada Group Inc.

Wrongful Dismissal: Delay in Litigation and Prejudice

This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a motion to extend the time to set an employment action down for trial under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs, alleging wrongful dismissal and age discrimination, sought to explain delays attributed to counsel’s inadvertence and pandemic disruptions, while the defendants argued prejudice due to witness unavailability. The court balanced the need for timely justice against resolution on the merits, finding no actual prejudice to the defendants.

E. v Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

A wrongful dismissal case involving allegations of age discrimination by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

K. v. IBM Canada Limited

Age Discrimination: Striking Broad Pleadings in Wrongful Dismissal

This is an interlocutory procedural decision regarding the scope of pleadings in a wrongful dismissal and age discrimination case. The court addressed a motion to strike parts of the plaintiff's statement of claim that alleged IBM 'regularly hired younger employees,' ruling that such broad allegations were irrelevant and should be narrowed to define an appropriate comparator group under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Additionally, evidence referencing a separate U.S. entity was excluded as irrelevant to the claim against IBM Canada Limited.

G. v. Black & McDonald Limited

Wrongful Dismissal: Discovery Motion Dismissed

This is an interlocutory motion concerning discovery obligations in a wrongful dismissal and age discrimination case involving a plaintiff employed for 15 years. The court applied the Bow Helicopters test to determine if the defendant's document production was sufficient, finding no evidence of specific missing documents and dismissing the motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

M. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Judicial Review: Age Discrimination & Reprisal Claim

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision where the applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal. The Divisional Court assessed whether the Tribunal's findings of no discrimination and bad faith, as well as its procedural and evidentiary rulings, were reasonable and consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

L. v. Huawei Technologies Canada Co. Ltd and The Human Rights Tribunal Of Ontario

Judicial Review: Age Discrimination in Employment Upheld

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding an age discrimination claim in employment. The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the Tribunal's finding that age was not a factor in the employee's termination despite performance issues and headcount reductions.

D. v 1763952 Ontario Inc. (K4 Integration Inc.)

This is a wrongful dismissal case involving allegations of age discrimination against the employer. The procedural context involves motions under Rule 20.04(2) and Rule 20.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating a motion for summary judgment or similar interlocutory application.

M. v York-Med Systems Inc.

Wrongful Dismissal: 16-Year Employee Costs Appeal

This is an appeal from a costs ruling in a wrongful dismissal action involving an employee with 16 years of service. The underlying dispute concerned the validity of a 1998 termination clause and an age discrimination claim, which was dismissed. The Divisional Court varied the costs award to 'no costs' due to the appellant's divided success.

C. v. Corporation of the City of Mississauga

Mandatory Retirement BFOR: Firefighters Age 60

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing applications by suppression firefighters challenging mandatory retirement at age 60. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the Tribunal's finding that mandatory retirement was a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) and that the City fulfilled its procedural duty to accommodate was reasonable.

G. v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal et al.

Workplace Injury: Age Discrimination Charter Challenge

This is a judicial review of a reconsideration decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. The applicant challenged Section 43(1)(c) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, alleging it violated Charter equality rights by discriminating on the basis of age. The Divisional Court found the provision did not create disadvantage based on prejudice or stereotyping and was justified under section 1 of the Charter.

G. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.

Firefighter Age Discrimination: Mandatory Retirement Judicial Review

This is a judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's decision to dismiss a firefighter's age discrimination claim under section 5 of the Human Rights Code. The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision as reasonable, finding that the mandatory retirement age of 60 for suppression firefighters constituted a bona fide occupational requirement justified by health and safety concerns.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 v. Toronto (City)

Judicial Review of Arbitration: Res Judicata in Labour Dispute

The Union sought judicial review of an arbitrator’s dismissal of grievances alleging age discrimination and breach of a collective agreement. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the arbitrator reasonably applied doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process to preclude re-litigation of issues decided in prior proceedings, and whether the arbitrator’s reasons were adequate.

Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario v. Ontario (Attorney General)

Mandatory Retirement: Justices of the Peace Age 70 Challenge

A constitutional challenge brought by the Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario against the Attorney General regarding the mandatory retirement age of 70 for justices of the peace. The court analyzed whether this requirement violated equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter and, if so, whether it was justified under section 1. The court found the provision unconstitutional and applied a 'reading in' remedy to align the retirement age with that of provincial court judges.

W. v. Welland (City)

Age Discrimination: Interim Injunction Granted

A wrongful dismissal and age discrimination case where an employee, employed as Fleet Supervisor, sought to remain employed beyond age 65 despite the respondent's policy of retirement at 65. The court granted an interim injunction to allow the applicant to remain employed pending appeal, citing the balance of convenience and the serious constitutional issue of age discrimination under Section 15(1) of the Charter.

G. v. Acres International Ltd.

Constructive Dismissal: Managerial Duties & Age Discrimination

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a trial judge's decision about constructive dismissal. The employee, D.G., sued his employer, Acres International Limited, after most of his duties were removed. The trial judge found that the employee was constructively dismissed and granted a Wallace extension because age was a factor in the change. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal. The court held that removing 90% of a manager's duties constituted constructive dismissal and the employee did not have to mitigate his damages by accepting a demeaning alternative position.

G. v. Acres International Ltd.

Constructive Dismissal: CFO Altered Role Found to Be Age Discrimination

A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff, a Chief Financial Officer, alleged that the job duties were substantially altered and reassigned to a younger employee, constituting a fundamental breach of his employment contract. The court found that the changes were motivated by age discrimination and extended the notice period to 18 months. The plaintiff was awarded severance for 18 months, share value loss of $102,684, and pre-judgment interest.

L. v. Stratford (City)

Human Rights: Mandatory Retirement at 60 Challenged Under Ontario Code

A human rights case challenging a mandatory retirement policy at age 60 under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The court examined whether the policy constituted age-based discrimination and whether it could be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR), considering factors such as job performance, safety, and reasonable accommodation. The case later reached the Supreme Court of Canada (L. v. Stratford (City), [1995] 3 SCR 733). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint, holding that the mandatory retirement policy at age 60 was justified as a bona fide occupational requirement. The appellant employer successfully established both the subjective and objective elements of the defence without a duty of individual accommodation under the objective test applicable to direct discrimination in this context, effectively upholding the mandatory retirement rule for police officers in Stratford at that time.

L. v. Stratford (City)

Mandatory Retirement: Police Officers Age Discrimination

This judicial review concerns a challenge to a mandatory retirement policy for police officers at age 60, alleging age discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Divisional Court reviewed the Human Rights Tribunal's findings on whether the policy constituted a bona fide occupational requirement, examining both subjective and objective tests regarding safety and performance. The court also addressed allegations of bias by the board chairman.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 53 v. Haldimand Board of Education (Div. Ct.)

Human Rights Employment: Age Discrimination in Collective Agreements

A human rights employment case involving age-based discrimination and the interpretation of collective agreements under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. The arbitration board was found to have erred in failing to apply section 51(1) of the Act and the Human Rights Code, 1981, and the decision was set aside for legal error.