Limitation Periods — Ontario Employment Law

P. v. Sky Service F.B.O. Inc.

Wrongful Dismissal: Appeal Dismissed as Statute-Barred

The Divisional Court dismissed an appeal from a motion judge's decision granting summary judgment to the employer, ruling that the employee's wrongful dismissal claim was statute-barred. The court applied the Limitations Act, 2002, finding that the limitation period began on the date of dismissal and was not postponed by the claimant's misunderstanding of legal significance or by commencing proceedings in the wrong forum.

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

HRTO Judicial Review: Bias and Fairness Challenges

This is a judicial review application brought by an employee against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the respondent employer. The applicant challenged the HRTO's summary dismissal of their discrimination, harassment, and reprisal claims, alleging procedural unfairness, bias, and unreasonable limitation period findings. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and that there was no evidence of bias or a breach of procedural fairness.

J. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

HRTO Judicial Review: Refusal of Reconsideration Application

This is a judicial review application concerning the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's refusal to reconsider a decision in a human rights complaint related to employment dismissal. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's refusal to reconsider was reasonable due to the applicant's nine-month delay, and that the court should not extend the time to review the original decision given the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process.

K. v. The Independent Electricity System Operator et al.

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing a human rights application. The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's findings on jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and limitation periods, regarding whether the application was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness.

S. v. Rotalec Canada Inc.

Employment: Leave to Amend Pleadings for Corporate Veil

This is a procedural ruling on a motion to amend pleadings in an employment law action involving constructive dismissal and unpaid commissions. The court granted leave to add corporate veil allegations against a directing mind, finding that a reasonable cause of action was disclosed and leaving limitations defences to be pleaded.

S. v. University Health Network

This is an interlocutory procedural decision regarding a motion to amend pleadings in an employment dispute involving constructive dismissal and Human Rights Code allegations. The court applied the mandatory test under r. 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, permitting amendments that particularized the constructive dismissal claim while refusing those parts deemed statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002. The court allowed additional heads of damages (aggravated and punitive) as they were based on the same facts rather than new causes of action.

F. v. Newport Sports Management Inc. et al.

Arbitration Award Upheld: Labour Relations & Fairness

This is a procedural ruling on an application to set aside an arbitration award in a closed shop labour relations context. The court addressed issues of arbitrator jurisdiction, the validity of a six-month contractual limitation period, and procedural fairness regarding the arbitrator's consideration of NHLPA information.

D. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Judicial Review: HRTO Limitation Period & Intervenor Status

This is a judicial review proceeding concerning the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's dismissal of claims as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code. The Divisional Court addressed motions for leave to intervene by the York University Staff Association and the Black Legal Action Centre, dismissing both motions as the proposed intervenors did not meet the criteria for added parties or friends of the court.

P. v. Sky Service

Wrongful Dismissal: Claim Dismissed as Statute-Barred

This is a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002. The court applied the discoverability doctrine and rejected the plaintiff's argument that a subjective misunderstanding of the termination facts postponed the limitation period, finding that the limitation period began on the date of termination.

B. v. Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

Wrongful Dismissal: Claim Dismissed as Statute-Barred

This is an appeal from a decision dismissing a wrongful dismissal claim as statute-barred. The appellant, a former temporary acting manager, alleged wrongful dismissal after being reassigned to a less senior role but commenced the claim after the two-year limitation period had expired. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the limitation period began running on September 14, 2020, after the suspension under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act ended, and that the claim filed outside this period was barred.

D. v. D.M. et al.

Limitation Periods: Addition of Defendants in Wrongful Dismissal

This is a procedural appeal from a Small Claims Court decision regarding the addition of a corporate defendant after the expiration of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002. The court addressed whether the limitation period was discoverable at the time of wrongful termination and whether claims for unpaid vacation pay were barred by the limitation period.

Total Meter Services Inc. v. GVM Integration

Former Employee Liable for Breach of Confidence and Duty

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a trial decision about a former employee's breach of fiduciary duty and confidence. The employee formed a competing business and used the employer's source code and confidential information. The trial judge found the employee liable and awarded $750,000 in disgorgement of profits. The Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding but allowed the appeal in part because one of the claims added by amendment (the "TCS Opportunities claim") was a new cause of action and statute-barred under the Limitations Act. The damages were reduced to $518,659.26.

E. v. Rogers Communications

E. v. Rogers: Appeal on Tort of Discrimination

This is a motion to the Court of Appeal from a single judge's order regarding the inclusion of oral argument transcripts in appeal materials. The self-represented appellant sued Rogers Communications for an alleged tort of discrimination arising from 2015 job interviews, but a judge dismissed his action on summary judgment. A single judge of the Court of Appeal denied the appellant's request to include the transcript of the summary judgment hearing in his appeal, noting that legal submissions are not evidence. The Court of Appeal found no error in the single judge's decision and upheld the order because the transcript was unnecessary for a fair hearing. The motion was dismissed with $3,500 in costs awarded to the employer.

J. et al. v. G. et al.

Union Expulsion: Limitation Periods and Pension Benefits

This is a procedural ruling regarding limitation periods in a dispute involving union expulsion and pension benefits. The court addressed whether the ultimate limitation period under the Limitation Act, 2002, barred claims that plaintiffs argued arose in 2021 but were arguably discoverable in the mid-1990s, including arguments regarding concealment and the void ab initio nature of the expulsion.

W. v. D. et al.

W. v. D.: Amending Pleadings in Employment Defamation

This is a procedural ruling regarding a plaintiff's motion to amend a Statement of Claim in an action against an employer for defamation and improper disciplinary actions. The court addressed whether to allow amendments to add parties and provide particulars for the defamation claim, and whether the claim was barred by limitation periods or the grievance process.

B. v. The Corporation of Norfolk County et al

Employment: Leave to Amend Pleadings for Human Rights Claims

This is an interlocutory motion regarding leave to amend a statement of claim in an employment dispute. The plaintiff sought to add causes of action including breaches of the Human Rights Code, intrusion upon seclusion, and defamation to existing claims of wrongful dismissal and toxic work environment. The court granted leave in part, allowing Human Rights Code claims based on the same factual matrix despite limitation period issues, but denied leave for negligent infliction of mental suffering and intentional interference with contractual relations due to insufficient material facts.

P. v. University of Windsor et al

P. v. University of Windsor: HR Claims in Civil Action

This is a civil procedure motion regarding a plaintiff's request to amend a Statement of Claim to include human rights claims and add new defendants after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed related applications. The court addressed whether the amendments introduced new causes of action, whether claims against new defendants were statute-barred by limitation periods, and costs associated with an abandoned injunction motion.

G. v. 2411363 Ontario Inc. (Ontario Health Clinics Brantford FHO Inc.)

Wrongful Dismissal: Common Employer & Limitations Appeal

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to dismiss her motion to amend her statement of claim to add individual respondents as common employers in a wrongful dismissal action. The motion judge found the claim against the individuals was statute-barred because the appellant knew material facts supporting the claim by her termination date in 2018, rejecting her argument that the claim was not discoverable until 2021. The Court of Appeal reviewed the application of the common employer doctrine, the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the assessment of affidavit evidence.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. A & L Hammer Workforce Management Inc.

Employment Standards: Continuing Offences & Limitation Periods

This is a procedural ruling in a prosecution brought by the Ministry of Labour against an employer for failing to comply with orders under the Employment Standards Act and the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act. The court addressed whether the charges were barred by limitation periods, determining that the offences were continuing and that the application to quash the charges should be heard on its merits despite being brought late.

C. v. Times Kitchen

This is a procedural or substantive ruling concerning limitation periods and the discoverability rule in the context of a workplace accident. The case addresses the conflict between the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, specifically regarding reasonable accommodation and the statutory bar on civil suits for workplace injuries.