Duty of Care — Ontario Employment Law

A. v. K.

Vicarious Liability for Employee Defamation

This is a procedural motion to strike claims in a tort action involving vicarious liability for employees' defamatory social media posts. The court addressed whether the brokerages owed a duty of care, were vicariously liable for the agents' conduct, and whether punitive damages could be awarded vicariously. The claim for punitive damages against the brokerages was struck as having no reasonable prospect of success.

H. v. Mann Engineering Ltd.

H. v. Mann Engineering: Negligence & Garnishment

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's summary judgment dismissing a former employee's negligence claim. The employee sued his former employer, alleging that its garnishment proceedings against him were conducted negligently and caused his new employer to fire him. The motion judge dismissed the claim after finding that the former employer owed no duty of care in these circumstances. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the adversarial relationship between a judgment creditor and debtor lacks the proximity required to establish a duty of care. The dismissal of the employee's action stands.

M.-T. v. Riverpark Place Retirement Residence

A negligence action involving a duty of care and breach of duty within an employment context.

M. v Canada (Attorney General)

Employer Duty of Care in Pension Admin

This is an interlocutory motion regarding a Rule 21.01(1)(a) application to determine legal questions concerning the employer's duty of care and fiduciary duty in providing pension-related information. The court addressed whether such legal determinations could be made at the interlocutory stage given that material facts regarding the alleged misrepresentations and the existence of a fiduciary relationship were disputed.

Psychological Association (Ontario) v M.

Corporate Duty to Employee: No Fiduciary Duty

This is a procedural ruling on a motion to strike pleadings in a dispute involving a corporation and its former employee. The court addressed whether corporate officers and directors owe a duty of care or fiduciary duty to an employee to protect them from their own misconduct. The court held that no such duty exists under statutory or common law, and struck the employee's counterclaim for contribution and indemnity.

H. v. M. et al.

This is a procedural ruling on a motion to strike pleadings in a third-party claim arising from a union-management dispute. The court analyzed whether the union executives' claim for negligent misrepresentation and vicarious liability against the employer and counsel disclosed a reasonable cause of action, ultimately finding no duty of care or reasonable reliance.

S. v. Casco

Pension Waiver Validity & Negligent Misrepresentation

This is a judicial review or appeal concerning the validity of a pension waiver signed by an employee or spouse. The court addressed whether strict compliance with the Pension Benefits Act was required for the waiver and whether the employer owed a duty of care in explaining the waiver's implications. The decision applied tort principles, including contributory negligence, to determine the outcome of the claim.

A. v. Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Limited

Negligent Supervision: Employer's Reasonable Conduct

This is an appeal from a trial decision in an employment-related negligence action where the employee claimed her employer's restructuring and performance management caused mental harm. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the employer owed a duty of care for negligent supervision and whether its actions in managing declining performance were reasonable. The court found no liability, noting the employer's conduct was reasonable and it lacked awareness of specific vulnerabilities.

A. v. Ontario

A. v. Ontario - SARS Nurses' Lawsuit Dismissed

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision refusing to strike out portions of the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim. The plaintiffs were nurses and their family members who sued Ontario for damages in negligence and for breach of s. 7 of the Charter after contracting SARS. The motion judge allowed the action to proceed in negligence and under the Charter. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it plain and obvious that Ontario did not owe the plaintiffs a private law duty of care and that the Charter claim had no prospect of success.

C. v. Canac Kitchens

C. v. Canac Kitchens: Tort Claims in Wrongful Dismissal

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision summarily dismissing several of a dismissed employee's tort claims. The employee sued his former employer, its parent company, and a private investigation firm for negligent investigation and intentional infliction of mental distress after he was mistakenly arrested and fired for theft. The motion judge dismissed the negligent investigation claim against all non-police defendants and the mental distress claim against the investigators and a human resources manager. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the private investigation firm could owe a duty of care to the employee because it performed a function analogous to public police. The Court also reinstated the intentional infliction of mental distress claims against the employer, parent company, HR manager, and investigators, ordering these claims to proceed to trial.

D. v. K.

Employee Liability for Negligence: D. v. K.

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a trial decision dismissing an employer's claim against an employee. The cottage owner appellant hired the 13-year-old respondent as a "boat boy". The respondent negligently caused a fire that destroyed a boathouse, and the appellant's insurer sought to recover the $285,000 loss through a subrogated claim. The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no duty of care. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that ordinary employees are generally not liable to indemnify their employers for ordinary negligence absent intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence.

Brad-Jay Investments Ltd. v. S.

Employment Law: Duty of Care and Breach

An employment law case concerning the duty of care owed by an employer or employee and whether a breach occurred.

H. (Guardian of) v. Sutton Group Incentive Realty Inc.

Employer Liability: Office Party Injury Appeal

This is an appeal from a trial decision involving an employee injured in a motor vehicle accident after leaving an office Christmas party with an unmonitored open bar. The appeal addresses whether the employer owed a duty of care to the intoxicated employee, issues of causation and expert evidence, and the trial judge's decision to discharge the jury.

J. v. F.

J. v. F.: Employer Not Liable for Drunk Driving

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a trial judgment holding an employer 30% liable for a motor vehicle accident caused by an intoxicated employee. The employee, F., was an alcoholic who had consumed alcohol before, during, and after his shift at the employer's plant, and later crashed into the plaintiff, J., while driving home. The trial judge found the employer liable based on a duty to provide a safe workplace and supervise problem employees. The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the employer owed no duty of care to members of the driving public for an employee's actions outside of work hours and away from the workplace. The action against the employer was dismissed.

B. v. Willowdale A.M.C. et al.

Workplace Injury: Negligence and Duty of Care

This is a negligence action involving an employee injured during the course of employment. The case addresses the duty of care owed by the employer to the employee.

H. et al. v. M. et al.; Royal Insurance Co. et al., Third Parties

Workplace Injury: Employer Liability for Employee Transport

This case addresses whether an employer was negligent in providing unsafe transportation for employees and whether the employer is liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries sustained during transport to work. The court found no negligence in the mode of transport and denied liability under the Act due to the absence of negligence or vehicle defects.

M. v. B.

Employer Liable for Unsafe Equipment

A personal injury case involving an employee who was injured when a fly-wheel of a portable sawing outfit burst due to excessive speed. The court addressed whether the defendant breached their duty of care by failing to ensure proper equipment and competent operation, and whether the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. The plaintiff was awarded $4,000 in damages for amputation of a leg, including expenses and loss of earning capacity.

H. v. B.

Master's Duty for Workplace Safety: Farmhand Injury Case

This is a merits decision regarding a workplace injury claim where a farmhand sued his employer for negligence after being injured by an unsafe ladder. The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the master's non-delegable duty to ensure workplace equipment is safe and whether the employee was contributorily negligent. The court found the master liable and awarded damages for the employee's injuries.

H. v. G. et al.

Employer Duty to Protect Employee from Third-Party Assault

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario regarding a tort claim for assault and vicarious liability in the context of a master-servant relationship. The central issue was whether the employer owed a duty to protect the employee from an assault committed by a third party (the plaintiff's brother). The appeal was allowed and the action was dismissed with costs, as no precedent or clear duty of care was established.

Dominion Canners Ltd. v. C. et al.

Workplace Illness: Negligence & Workers' Comp Bar

This is a negligence action brought by employees against their employer for contracting typhoid fever from contaminated drinking water supplied at the workplace. The Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the jury's finding that the employer breached its common law duty of care and statutory duties under the Public Health Act, and determined that the illness was not an 'accident' under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court reviewed the damages awarded for medical expenses and loss of income.