Res Judicata — Ontario Employment Law

Purolator Canada Inc. v. Canada Council of Teamsters et al.

This is a judicial review application concerning a labour arbitration proceeding between an employer and a union. The central issue is whether the arbitrator acted reasonably in refusing to bifurcate the arbitration to address res judicata as a preliminary issue, and whether the Ontario court had jurisdiction to review a procedural decision made in British Columbia.

D. v. WRPSB and L.

This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning whether the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear a claim arising from a settlement agreement negotiated within a collective agreement framework, or if the dispute falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator or the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The court applied the Weber v. Ontario Hydro framework to determine the essential character of the dispute and considered whether the claim was barred by res judicata.

R. v. Ontario

This is a procedural ruling regarding jurisdiction and res judicata in a labour law context involving collective agreements. The court addressed whether the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitration tribunal pursuant to the Weber v. Ontario Hydro principle and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

J. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

J. v. CIBC: Action Dismissed as Abuse of Process

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing the employee's action. The employee had sued the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and an individual defendant. The motion judge dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding it was an attempt to relitigate unsuccessful proceedings before other bodies and courts. The Court of Appeal agreed that the appellant was seeking to relitigate previous decisions, which had run their course, and dismissed the appeal.

Total Mechanical Systems Limited v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 30

OLRB Exclusive Jurisdiction: VRA Dispute

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision concerning a challenge to a Voluntary Recognition Agreement. The appellant was a business owner who signed the agreement on behalf of his company, and the respondent was the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 30. The motion judge struck out the civil claim, finding the Ontario Labour Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute and the lawsuit was an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the validity of the agreement had already been decided by the labour board and the courts. The dismissal of the action stands, and the union was awarded $14,000 in costs for the appeal.

J. v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

Employee's Repeated Lawsuits Dismissed as Abuse of Process

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the employee's action. The employee had been engaged in litigation with her former employer over employment-related matters for over 10 years, despite a settlement agreement. The motion judge dismissed the action on multiple grounds, including limitation periods, no reasonable cause of action, abuse of process, and exclusive jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board. The Court of Appeal agreed that the action was an abuse of process and an attempt to re-litigate issues already decided, dismissing the appeal.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 v. Toronto (City)

Judicial Review of Arbitration: Res Judicata in Labour Dispute

The Union sought judicial review of an arbitrator’s dismissal of grievances alleging age discrimination and breach of a collective agreement. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the arbitrator reasonably applied doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process to preclude re-litigation of issues decided in prior proceedings, and whether the arbitrator’s reasons were adequate.

D. v. Town of Richmond Hill

This is a procedural ruling concerning jurisdiction in a grievance arbitration matter involving a municipal employer. The court addressed whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear the grievance, considering the principle of res judicata.

Air Canada Pilots Association v. Air Canada Ace Aviation Holdings Inc.

Union Standing: Oppression Claim Dismissed

This is a procedural and substantive ruling on the standing of an unincorporated trade union to bring an oppression claim under the Canada Business Corporations Act. The Air Canada Pilots Association sought an injunction to prevent shareholder distributions, alleging risk to wage and pension obligations. The court declined to recognize the union as a proper complainant, found the harm speculative, and held the claims barred by res judicata from prior CCAA restructuring approvals.

S. v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 748

Wrongful Dismissal: Issue Estoppel and Mitigation Considered

A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff rejected a successor employer’s offer deemed reasonable under the Employment Standards Act. The court considered whether issue estoppel precludes a common law claim, whether rejection of a reasonable offer limits damages, and whether a 10-year delay in prosecution constitutes an abuse of process. The court ruled that the delay alone does not bar the claim and exercised discretion to allow the action to proceed.

V. v. K.

Workplace Discrimination: Sexual Harassment Case in Education Sector

A workplace discrimination case involving sexual harassment by a superintendent in an educational setting. The case also addresses issues of res judicata and estoppel related to prior discipline history.

R. v. Hershey Canada Inc.

This is a procedural ruling by the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning the finality of an arbitrator's decision in a union grievance. The court addressed whether issue estoppel and res judicata barred the appellant from re-litigating the jurisdiction to arbitrate, particularly in light of newly discovered evidence from an earlier collective agreement.

Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd. v. Ontario

Common Employer Doctrine & Corporate Liability

This is a procedural and substantive ruling regarding the enforcement of a prior judgment against related corporate entities. The plaintiff, a former employee, sought to hold multiple corporate entities jointly liable under the common employer doctrine and via oppression and fraudulent conveyance claims, arguing they constituted a single employer. The court found no joint liability, applying the doctrine of corporate separateness and issue estoppel from prior litigation.

D. v. C.N. Weber Ltd.

Absolute Privilege in Wrongful Dismissal Pleadings

This is a procedural ruling addressing whether absolute privilege attaches to pleadings in judicial proceedings, thereby barring subsequent actions for defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, or abuse of process. The court also determined that the claims were barred by res judicata and issue estoppel because they were duplicative of a prior wrongful dismissal action.

Susan Shoe Industries Ltd. v. R.

Res Judicata in Severance Pay Claims: ESA vs. Common Law

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a judicial review application concerning severance pay entitlements under the Employment Standards Act. The court determined that the trial judge's dismissal of the employee's severance claim in the wrongful dismissal action was not on the merits, meaning res judicata and issue estoppel did not bar subsequent proceedings under the Act. Additionally, the court held that the employer's application for judicial review of the Employment Standards officer's order was premature because the statutory review procedures had not been exhausted.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1394 v. Extendicare Health Services Inc.

Arbitration Board Jurisdiction vs Labour Board

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning the relationship between the Ontario Labour Relations Board and a board of arbitration. The central issue was whether a board of arbitration is bound by the Labour Board's interpretation of a collective agreement in subsequent proceedings. The court held that the arbitration board is not bound by the Labour Board's decision due to its independent jurisdiction and expertise, although it must consider the Labour Board's reasoning.

Brantford Police Service Board v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.)

Human Rights Tribunal: Delay and Abuse of Process

This is a judicial review application concerning the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal's jurisdiction to address unreasonable delay and abuse of process in a human rights complaint. The Divisional Court considered whether the tribunal was empowered to review delay issues before judicial review and whether doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel barred relitigation of issues previously decided by the Ontario Police Commission.

Susan Shoe Industries Ltd. v. R.

Severance Pay Dispute: Res Judicata and Employment Standards Act

A merits decision involving a dispute over severance pay where an employee was awarded six months' notice under a written contract, but the court dismissed the statutory severance pay claim. The employee later received severance pay from an employment standards officer, and the case examines whether res judicata prevents reconsideration of the claim. The court also addressed whether statutory severance pay can override contractual notice provisions and the jurisdiction of employment standards officers.

Re Dineen Roads & Bridges Ltd. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America et al.

Judicial Review: LRB Certification and Res Judicata

This is a judicial review proceeding concerning the Ontario Labour Relations Board's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act regarding collective agreements and certification. The court examined whether the Board correctly applied res judicata and whether its earlier decisions constituted a declaration terminating bargaining rights under section 52.

F. v. R.

Employer Indemnity for Employee Assault

This is an appeal concerning an employer's claim for indemnity against an employee for damages paid to a third party for an assault committed by the employee. The court addressed whether the employee's actions were unauthorized and contrary to instructions, and whether a prior verdict finding both jointly liable was conclusive in the indemnity claim.