Employer Obligations — Ontario Employment Law

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

OHSA Appeal: Due Diligence and Standard of Review

An appeal of convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against the City of Sudbury for alleged failures to ensure workplace safety. The court addressed the standard of review for OHSA prosecutions, finding that questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard while mixed questions of fact and law are reviewed for palpable and overriding error. The appeal was allowed and acquittals entered because the trial judge's findings were unsupported by evidence and based on speculation.

S. v. Stahle Construction Inc.

Plaintiff Found Eligible for Long-Term Disability Benefits

The plaintiff took temporary medical leave due to a hernia condition, during which the employer terminated his benefits without requesting supporting medical documentation. The plaintiff sued, alleging this prevented him from applying for long-term disability benefits. The court found the plaintiff met the definition of disability and was eligible for benefits, inferring negligence by the employer for its lack of action.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Great Lakes Food Company Ltd.

OHSA Prosecution: Post-Incident Conduct & Reasonable Precautions

This is a prosecution of an employer under the Occupational Health and Safety Act regarding the provision of cold water protective equipment on a fishing vessel. The court addressed whether post-incident conduct (purchasing equipment after a work order) could establish the actus reus of the offence and defined the standard for 'reasonable precautions' in the context of industry standards and environmental conditions.

Ontario (Labour) v. Quinton Steel (Wellington) Limited

OHSA General Duty Clause: New Trial Ordered

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a summary conviction appeal judge's decision regarding an employer's acquittal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Crown appealed the acquittal of Quinton Steel after a worker died falling from a temporary welding platform. The courts below dismissed the charge, finding that specific workplace regulations governed fall protection and precluded the use of the Act's general duty clause. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Court held that the lower courts misunderstood the law, ruling that an employer's general duty to take every reasonable precaution is not limited or exhausted by specific safety regulations.

York Condominium Corp No 163 v R.

Condo Harassment: Workplace Safety & Costs

This is a procedural ruling regarding costs in an application concerning workplace harassment. The court addressed whether a unit owner's conduct violated the Condominium Act and constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, specifically focusing on the condominium corporation's duty to protect its employees from psychological harm.

D. v. Great West Life Assurance Co. et al.

Disability Benefits: Employer Obligations & Mitigation

This case addresses the employer's obligations under an employee benefit plan regarding short-term and long-term disability benefits for an employee suffering from anxiety, depression, and panic disorders. The court found that the plaintiff was disabled under the plan and that the employer failed to provide necessary supports, including rehabilitation and workplace accommodations. Additionally, the court ruled that the denial of the short-term disability claim was unjustified based on medical evidence and that the plaintiff did not fail to mitigate damages by not pursuing therapy.

D. v. Kraft Canada Inc.

Constructive Dismissal: 16-Year Employee Awarded 12 Months Notice

This case addresses whether an employer's failure to adequately investigate and address workplace harassment constituted constructive dismissal. The court found that the employer breached its duty to provide a harassment-free workplace, creating intolerable working conditions. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded 12 months' notice, and the employer was denied credit for disability payments received during the notice period.

L. v. Rio Algom Limited

Pension Plan Wind Up Jurisdiction: L. v. Rio Algom

This is an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of courts to compel an employer to commence proceedings to wind up a pension plan under the Pension Benefits Act. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the statutory scheme provides exclusive authority to the Superintendent of Financial Services and prohibits courts from indirectly circumventing legislative provisions by ordering an employer to initiate wind-up proceedings.

U. v. Savaria Concord Lifts Inc.

Wrongful Dismissal: Employer Fails to Deliberate on Resignation

A wrongful dismissal case where the court examined whether the plaintiff's resignation was clear and unequivocal or a spontaneous emotional reaction. The employer was found to have wrongfully terminated the plaintiff by failing to consider the surrounding circumstances, and the plaintiff was awarded $50,000 in damages, equivalent to 7 ½ months of notice.

Ontario (Labour) v. Black & Mcdonald Limited

OHSA Prosecution: Due Diligence and Sentencing Appeal

This is an appeal regarding the sentencing and procedural handling of charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The court addressed whether the trial judge erred by imposing absolute liability, considering contributory negligence in sentencing, and dismissing counts for vagueness, ultimately dismissing the Ministry of Labour's appeal.

Piresferreira v. Ayotte

Constructive Dismissal: Employer Liability for Supervisor Harassment and Assault

A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged that the employer failed to address verbal abuse and physical assault by a supervisor, leading to a repudiation of the employment relationship. The court determined that constructive dismissal was established and considered the reasonable notice period based on Bardal factors. The case also addressed vicarious liability for the supervisor’s actions and the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace.

R. v. Dofasco Inc.

R. v. Dofasco: Employer Liability for Machine Guarding

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a judge's decision affirming an employer's acquittal for workplace safety violations. The Ministry of Labour appealed the acquittal of Dofasco Inc. after a worker was injured on a steel mill lacking a physical guard. The lower courts decided that the employer's alternate safety procedures and the worker's deliberate failure to follow them meant a physical guard was unnecessary. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered a conviction, ruling that safety procedures cannot replace a physical guard and that worker misconduct is no defence. The matter was remitted to the justice of the peace for sentencing.

A.-A. v. Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada) Co.

Constructive Dismissal Claim Dismissed

A constructive dismissal case involving a long-time employee who alleged discriminatory treatment, including racism and a poisoned work environment, leading to a claim that the employer repudiated the employment relationship. The court applied the Farber v. Royal Trust Co. framework to assess whether the employer's conduct objectively repudiated the relationship and found that the employment relationship was not repudiated. The case also addressed issues of reasonable notice and overtime claims.

United Air Lines Inc. (Bankruptcy), Re

Pension Funding Obligations in Bankruptcy

This is an interlocutory ruling in insolvency proceedings concerning an employer's obligation to fund pension plans for its employees. The court held that United Air Lines Inc. must resume funding its Canadian pension plans and pay accumulated arrears, rejecting the argument that its financial difficulties excused these obligations.

R. v. C.

A case concerning the duties and liability of an employer regarding personal injuries and breach of policy.

M. v. Toronto (City)

Pension Plan Trust Breach: By-law Invalidated

This case addresses whether By-law 186-2001, which required administrative costs to be paid from the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, breached trust principles, contractual obligations, or the Pension Benefits Act. The court declared the by-law invalid for breaching trust terms, applying the Schmidt v. Air Products framework, and found no breach of the PBA due to the by-law's lack of implementation.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Hamilton (City)

OHS Prosecution: Fatal Accident & Signaller Duties

This is an appeal concerning a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a fatal workplace accident involving a reversing dump truck. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the employer's failure to provide a signaller could be proven by evidence that the signaller failed to meet specific regulatory requirements, interpreting sections 104 and 106 of Ontario Regulation 213/91 as complementary provisions.

R. v. Hershey Canada Inc.

Class Action: EI Premium Reductions & Statutory Benefits

This is a procedural ruling in a class action lawsuit brought by employees against their employer, Hershey Canada Inc., regarding alleged non-compliance with statutory obligations to share Employment Insurance premium reductions. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the claim was not barred by issue estoppel or res judicata and that the court had jurisdiction to determine compliance, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

B. v. Westinghouse Canada Inc.

B. v. Westinghouse: Aggravated Damages for Disability Assistance

This is an appeal from a trial judge's decision in a wrongful dismissal case involving an employee terminated after a workplace injury. The central issue was whether the employer's failure to assist in obtaining long-term disability benefits and its breach of procedural rules regarding medical reports justified an award of aggravated and punitive damages. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal principles governing such damages, including the requirement of a separate actionable wrong and foreseeability.

G. v. Catholic Church Extension Society of Canada

Dismissal for Cause: Sexual Harassment Appeal

This is an appeal concerning the justification of a dismissal for cause where a financial director was terminated for alleged sexual harassment of a subordinate. The court examined the employer's obligations to maintain a harassment-free workplace, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the credibility of the evidence regarding the harassment.