Employer Liability — Ontario Employment Law

Royal LePage RCR Realty Brokerage v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

HRTO Judicial Review: Procedural Fairness & Default Decisions

A judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding an employer's failure to respond to Tribunal communications. The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it unreasonable and procedurally unfair for relying on deeming provisions to waive the employer's rights without considering contextual factors or the principle that a client should not be penalized for counsel's failures.

Ontario (Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Greater Sudbury (City)

OHSA Due Diligence Defence: City of Greater Sudbury Appeal

This is an appeal regarding a criminal or statutory infraction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal a decision that upheld the City of Greater Sudbury's acquittal for OHSA violations, finding that the lower courts correctly applied the due diligence defence.

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

OHSA Prosecution: Due Diligence and Employer Liability

This is a merits decision in a statutory prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act involving a corporate defendant and individual supervisors. The court addressed whether the defendants were employers or supervisors, whether they proved due diligence regarding hazardous rigging practices using embedded rebar, and the scope of their duties under the Act. The court found the essential elements of the counts proved and rejected the due diligence defence.

D. v. P.

Employer Vicariously Liable for Employee's Travel Accident

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a summary judgment motion about vicarious liability for an employee's car accident. The employee was driving to a distant job site when he caused an accident while making a short detour for coffee. The motion judge held the employer vicariously liable because the travel and the minor detour were authorized acts within the course of employment. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the application of the Salmond test for vicarious liability.

D. v. S.

This is a procedural ruling on a motion for summary judgment in a tort action alleging employer vicarious liability for an employee's negligence during a motor vehicle accident. The court determined that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the employee's actions, including a brief stop for coffee, were within the course of employment, and granted summary judgment on the liability issue.

E. v. Simplicity Air Ltd.

Vicarious Liability for Punitive Damages in Workplace Injury

This is an appeal from a jury verdict awarding punitive damages to an injured employee against their employer. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, upholding the employer's vicarious liability for supervisors' misconduct that contravened workplace safety legislation and was highly reprehensible. The court confirmed that contributory negligence does not reduce punitive damages and that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate.

Ontario (Labour) v. Sudbury (City)

OHSA Employer Liability: City of Sudbury Appeal

This appeal concerns the liability of the City of Sudbury as an employer under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for breaches of safety regulations. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the municipality assumed employer responsibilities by employing inspectors at a project site and whether the due diligence defence should be remitted for further consideration. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld it (R. v. Greater Sudbury (City), 2023 SCC 28). The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal on equal division, meaning the Court of Appeal's decision stands. The City is considered an employer under the Act and the matter of its due diligence defence is remitted to the provincial offences appeal court.

D.F. v. Toronto Parking Authority

Workplace Sexual Assault: Labour Arbitrator Jurisdiction

This is a jurisdictional decision determining whether a unionized employee's claims for workplace sexual harassment and assault fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the Labour Relations Act. The court affirmed that such claims arise from the collective agreement and do not violate the Charter, finding no remedial gap in the arbitration process.

C. v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal

WSIAT Judicial Review: Course of Employment Bar

This is a judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision upholding the statutory bar on a civil action under section 28(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's determination that the applicant was injured in the course of employment and that Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer was reasonable.

Ontario (Labour) v. Sudbury (City)

OHSA Employer Liability: Municipality & Due Diligence Appeal

This is a motion to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal an acquittal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Ministry of Labour charged the City of Greater Sudbury over a fatal construction accident, but the courts below acquitted the municipality after finding it was not an employer because it lacked control over the project. The Court of Appeal granted the motion for leave to appeal because the interpretation of an employer in municipal infrastructure projects raises an important question of law. Leave to appeal the acquittals was granted. The case later reached the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Greater Sudbury (City), 2023 SCC 28). The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal on equal division, meaning the Court of Appeal's decision stands. The City is considered an employer under the Act and the matter of its due diligence defence is remitted to the provincial offences appeal court.

B. v. S.

Workplace Harassment Damages: Emotional Distress & PTSD

This is a merits decision regarding a claim for damages arising from sexual harassment and attempted drugging by an employer. The court found the employer's conduct abhorrent and awarded $50,000 in general damages for emotional distress and $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage due to PTSD, while declining punitive damages due to a prior criminal sentence. The plaintiff was also awarded $30,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

M. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Workplace Discrimination: Rule 21 Motion to Strike

This is a civil procedure decision regarding a Rule 21 motion to strike claims in an employment dispute involving constructive dismissal, discrimination, and harassment. The court addressed whether the plaintiff's allegations of discrimination based on age and disability, as well as harassment and intentional infliction of mental suffering, were sufficiently pleaded to establish liability against the employer and individual defendants. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the statement of claim to address deficiencies, while the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs.

Ontario (Labour) v. New Mex Canada Inc.

Ontario (Labour) v. New Mex Canada - OHSA Sentencing

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a provincial offences appeal judge's decision on sentencing under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The employee died from a fall at work. The trial justice of the peace imposed a $250,000 fine on the corporate employer and 25-day intermittent jail sentences on its two directors. The appeal judge varied these to a $50,000 corporate fine and $15,000 fines per director. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal judge's sentences, finding the original sentences demonstrably unfit and based on an error in principle, while clarifying the role of moral blameworthiness and deterrence in regulatory sentencing.

A. v. Gallagher’s Garage Ltd.

This is a tort action involving a claim of negligence and personal injury against an employer, focusing on the standard of care owed by the employer.

Corporation of the City of Windsor v. M.

Judicial Review: Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal Decision

The Divisional Court reviewed a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision challenging the City of Windsor and a union for violating the Pay Equity Act by reducing wages of a female-dominated job class. The court assessed the reasonableness of the Tribunal's interpretation of the Act, specifically regarding the maintenance of pay equity, the application of exceptions based on bargaining strength, and the scope of employer versus union liability for compensation adjustments.

R. v. Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc.

Workplace Safety: OHSA Sentencing Appeal

An appeal against sentencing for an employer convicted of strict liability offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Environmental Protection Act following a propane facility explosion that caused death and environmental damage. The court addressed the employer's failure to provide adequate instruction and supervision to employees, the rejection of due diligence and official error defences, and the appropriateness of the fines imposed given the aggravating factors.

R. v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.

Workplace Safety: Hazard in Aisle

This is an appeal regarding a strict liability offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act where an employee tripped on an empty skid in a workplace aisle. The court addressed whether the placement of the skid constituted a 'hazard or obstruction' under section 11 of Regulation 851 and whether the employer exercised due diligence. The trial judge's interpretation of the legislation was upheld on appeal.

I. v. L.

I. v. L.: Vicarious Liability for Employee Assault

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim against a taxi company. The plaintiff alleged she was sexually assaulted by a taxi driver while intoxicated and sued the taxi company for vicarious liability, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. The motion judge dismissed the claims, finding the taxi company was not vicariously liable for the driver's intentional torts absent fault, and the plaintiff failed to establish negligence or fiduciary duty. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the alleged assault was not sufficiently connected to the employment risk to justify vicarious liability under the Bazley test.

G. v. CPNI Inc.

ESA Deductions: Unpaid Wages Appeal

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision in an employment standards action regarding unpaid wages and unauthorized deductions. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the employer had a valid defence under section 13(3) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 for deducting wages due to unreturned company property, and whether the motion judge erred in refusing to stay enforcement of the employees' judgment pending a counterclaim for conversion.

D.K. v Nemato Corp.

Common Employment Doctrine Appeal: D.K. v Nemato Corp.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision on a Rule 21 motion to strike in a workplace injury claim involving the doctrine of common employment. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claim for common employment liability would fail, and upheld the costs order.