Statutory Immunity — Ontario Employment Law

K. v. Corporation of the Town of St Marys et al.

Municipal Officer Immunity: Scope of Employment

This is a procedural ruling on a motion to strike claims against individual municipal defendants. The court determined that the claims were barred by statutory immunity under the Municipal Act, 2001, and that the defendants acted within the scope of their duties in good faith. The court also refused leave to amend the pleadings due to the plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient material facts.

B. v. Women's College Hospital

Physician Privileges: Dependent Contractor Status vs. Statutory Immunity

This appeal concerns whether physicians whose privileges were terminated following the closure of an urgent care centre are barred from claiming damages by section 44(5) of the Public Hospitals Act. The physicians argued they were 'dependent contractors' exempt from the statutory immunity, but the Court of Appeal held that the statutory bar applies regardless of the legal characterization of the relationship.

B. v. Women’s College Hospital

Physician Employment Status & Statutory Immunity

This case addresses whether physicians holding hospital privileges are employees, dependent contractors, or independent contractors entitled to reasonable notice damages upon the closure of an urgent care centre. The court determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to reasonable notice damages because the statutory immunity provision in the Public Hospitals Act applied to the hospital board's good faith decisions. Additionally, the court ruled that a voluntary retention bonus paid to the plaintiffs was deductible from damages to avoid double recovery, while long-term disability benefits funded by the plaintiffs were not deductible.

P. v. Saint Elizabeth Health Care

Wrongful Dismissal: Statutory Immunity & Admissibility

This is an appeal concerning a wrongful dismissal action where the appellant sought leave to amend pleadings to comply with evidentiary rules regarding statutory reporting obligations. The central issue was whether claims of bad faith and wrongful dismissal could proceed given the interaction between the employer's duty to report the termination of a regulated health professional and the immunity provisions for good faith reports.

V. v. S.

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario regarding whether an employer retains 'protected defendant' status under the Insurance Act when sued for vicarious liability for an employee's negligence. The court held that statutory immunity for vehicle owners does not extend to vicarious liability as an employer, meaning the employer is liable for the employee's negligence despite protections for vehicle owners.

Y. v. M.

Y. v. M. - Crown Servant Immunity Appeal

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff, an employee of Correctional Services Canada, sued her subordinates for defamation and malicious prosecution after they filed harassment complaints against her. The motion judge dismissed the action, ruling that section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act barred the claim because the plaintiff received disability pensions. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by applying the statutory bar without regard to the capacity in which the defendants were acting, ordering the action to proceed.

M. Estate v. Frappier Group Inc.

Employer Liability vs. Insurance Act Immunity

This is a procedural ruling on a motion to strike a statement of claim in an action where plaintiffs sued an employer for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident caused by an employee. The court determined that section 267.1 of the Ontario Insurance Act, which provides statutory immunity to the 'owner' of a vehicle, does not explicitly extend to employers, and thus the issues of vicarious and direct employer liability must be determined at trial.