Disclosure — Ontario Employment Law

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Cementation Canada Inc.

OHSA Prosecution: Charter Motion Dismissed

This is a pre-trial Charter motion in a prosecution brought by the Ministry of Labour against Cementation Canada Inc. for alleged breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and mining regulations. The court dismissed the motion for a stay of proceedings, finding that the charges were sufficiently particularized and that there was no breach of the defendant's Charter rights regarding disclosure or solicitor-client privilege.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd.

OH&S Prosecution: Disclosure and Privilege Ruling

This is a procedural ruling in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace fatality. The court addressed motions for disclosure of disciplinary records and solicitor-client communications, finding that privilege was upheld and disclosure denied. The court also rejected Charter delay and abuse of process arguments, refusing to stay the proceedings.

H. v. C. and Walther Communications Limited

A wrongful dismissal case involving issues of disclosure and the employee's duty to mitigate damages. The proceedings reference specific court rules regarding offers to settle or procedural motions.

The Society of United Professionals v. New Horizon System Solutions

Judicial Review: Union MSA Disclosure Duty

This is a judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding an employer's duty to bargain in good faith and disclose a Master Services Agreement to a union. The Divisional Court applied the standard of reasonableness to determine whether the Board's order for partial disclosure of the MSA was appropriate, balancing the union's representational rights against the employer's confidentiality obligations.

D. v. Compucom Canada Co.

This is a procedural ruling concerning evidence and trial practice in an employment law context. The case addresses the admissibility and handling of witness testimony via video conferences and issues related to disclosure.

G. v. St. Joseph Print Group Inc.

Constructive Dismissal: HR Email Privilege Rejected

This interlocutory proceeding addresses a dispute over litigation privilege in the context of a constructive dismissal claim. The court rejected the employer's claim that internal HR communications regarding performance strategies were privileged, finding that litigation was not reasonably anticipated at the time the emails were created and that they did not meet the requirements for common law privilege under the Wigmore test. The court ordered further disclosure of the contested HR emails to ensure fair litigation.

Oz Optics Ltd. v J.R.Z.

Disclosure in Breach of Confidence: Former Employees

This is an interlocutory procedural ruling concerning the scope of document disclosure in a breach of confidence action involving former employees. The court applied rules of civil procedure regarding relevance and proportionality to determine whether defendants' personal financial records and the plaintiff's financial statements should be produced in the context of allegations of misappropriation of confidential information.

G. v. Habitat for Humanity Greater Toronto Inc.

Gu v Habitat: Disclosure in Discrimination Case

This is an interlocutory motion regarding disclosure obligations in a wrongful dismissal and discrimination case. The plaintiff sought additional documents related to her termination, hiring of a replacement, and alleged discriminatory withholding of salary increases and bonuses. The court addressed claims of solicitor-client and settlement privilege, ultimately upholding privilege where applicable and ordering disclosure for the rationale behind salary increase decisions while dismissing the bonus claim due to lack of evidence.

B. v L.

Employment Class Action: Cut-off Date for Membership

This is an interlocutory decision in an employment class action concerning procedural matters. The court addressed the appropriate cut-off date for class membership, ruling that the date notice is given to class members is the correct standard. Additionally, the court clarified the defendant's obligation to disclose the process used to identify class members, holding that such disclosure is unnecessary unless membership disputes arise.

B. v KMI Brokers Inc. et al

Wrongful Dismissal: Striking Pleadings for Disclosure Breaches

This is an interlocutory motion in a wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff sought to strike the defendant's Statement of Defence due to procedural breaches. The defendants failed to comply with court orders and deliver a proper Affidavit of Documents, raising issues regarding the reasonableness of their explanation and the conduct of counsel. The court considered whether striking pleadings was justified as a last resort under Rule 30.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

S. v Tony Graham Motors Group

Common Employer Doctrine & Disclosure Proportionality

This case addresses whether the common employer doctrine applies to hold interconnected corporations jointly liable for constructive dismissal when the defendants have admitted interconnectivity. The court also considered whether the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04 limits the disclosure of financial records that are relevant but unnecessary due to these admissions.

H. v. London(City)

Wrongful Dismissal: Privilege Rejected for Investigation Report

This is an interlocutory motion regarding the disclosure of documents in a wrongful dismissal case brought by a former employee against the City of London. The plaintiff sought production of an external investigation report, while the employer claimed solicitor-client and litigation privilege. The court rejected the privilege claims, finding the investigation was not conducted for legal advice or the dominant purpose of litigation, but ordered redaction of personal and health information to comply with privacy legislation.

M. v. G.

Employment Dispute: Disclosure and Costs Motion

This is an interlocutory motion concerning disclosure and costs in an employment dispute where the plaintiff was terminated without cause. The court addressed whether to clarify a prior order to include travel-related documents relevant to the nature of the employment and determined the appropriate costs for the motion under Rule 57.01.

M. v. Boulder City Climbing School Inc.

Employment Contract: Bonus Clause & Personal Liability Appeal

This is an appeal from a trial decision in an employment contract dispute concerning the interpretation of a bonus clause, unpaid salary, and expenses. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the bonus clause and the award of $8,301 in damages, while also affirming the personal liability of a corporate officer for the amounts owing.

H. v. Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board

Pension Fiduciary Duty: Disclosure of Plan Changes

This appeal concerns the fiduciary duties and disclosure obligations of a pension plan administrator under the Pension Benefits Act. The court addressed whether the administrator breached its duty by failing to disclose speculative potential plan changes and by selecting an effective date for amendments. The court found that speculative information did not trigger a duty to disclose and that the administrator's decisions were made in good faith and for administrative certainty.

P. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)

P. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of the Divisional Court ordering the production of a legal opinion. The employee, C.P., sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with her complaint against Sears Canada Inc. The Divisional Court held that a legal opinion provided to the Commission by its in-house counsel was not protected by solicitor-client privilege because the Commission was not adverse in interest to the complainant. The Court of Appeal allowed the Commission's appeal, holding that the legal opinion was protected by solicitor-client privilege, rejecting the lower courts' reliance on a New Brunswick decision.

Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Dofasco Inc.

Human Rights: Tribunal Jurisdiction to Order Medical Disclosure

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario regarding the jurisdiction of a board of inquiry in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and termination due to disability. The central issue was whether the board had the authority to order the complainant to disclose medical and other private documents to the employer. The court addressed the scope of tribunal powers under the Human Rights Code and Statutory Powers Procedure Act, balancing privacy rights with procedural fairness.

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc.

OHSA Charges, Charter Remedies: Court Jurisdiction for Costs

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a judicial review decision regarding an order of costs. The employer and a supervisor were charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The provincial offences court found the Crown breached the Charter by failing to disclose a document and ordered the Crown to pay $2,000 in costs. The General Division quashed the cost order, finding no jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal decided the provincial offences court did have jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and allowed the appeal, sending the case back to consider if the cost order was appropriate.

Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Ontario (Board of Inquiry into Northwestern General Hospital)

Human Rights: Board of Inquiry Disclosure Powers

This is a judicial review concerning the authority of a Board of Inquiry under the Human Rights Code to order the disclosure of witness statements and other documents during the investigation stage. The court addressed whether the disclosure of such materials undermines confidentiality and whether criminal disclosure standards (R. v. Stinchcombe) apply to human rights proceedings.

Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) v. Ontario (Human Rights Board of Inquiry)

Human Rights Disclosure: Duty of Fairness & Stinchcombe

This judicial review addresses whether the duty of fairness in human rights proceedings requires the disclosure of investigative materials, such as witness statements, to respondents. The Divisional Court applied principles from R. v. Stinchcombe to ensure fairness and eliminate surprise, while balancing the respondents' right to know the case against the complainants' privacy and the risk of discouraging complaints.