Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-Law, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In Peretta v Rand v Technology Corporation (“Perretta”), an employer repudiated an employment contract by insisting that a new term be added after the contract had already come into effect. The reason that the employer’s insistence on adding a new term resulted in the repudiation of the contract was that the new term was so important that the employer’s attempt to force the employee to agree to it showed an intention to not be bound by the original contract. . . . [more]

Like it or hate it, virtual hearings are with us in some part indefinitely. With virtual witnesses, and all of the parties attending remotely, there’s certainly some savings in travel expenses.

But what about complex trials, and where trial fairness may be significantly impaired through an online format alone? Can a forum non conveniens argument be raised in this context?

A party who is outside of Ontario can move under R 17.02 Rules of Civil Procedure staying the proceeding, including if the court concludes Ontario is not a convenient forum. This is different from the real and substantial connection test, . . . [more]

By Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-law, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In Jones v Bayview Credit Union (“Jones”), an employer wrongfully dismissed an employee due to allegations that the employee disclosed confidential client information, violating confidentiality policies and procedures. Although the employee had accessed client information in the context of providing services to another client, this practice did not breach any client’s confidentiality rights. Instead, the employee remained alert to relevant privacy issues while accessing the confidential information of one client while assisting another. . . . [more]

Civil litigators are accustomed to counsel who pose and posture, typically needlessly, and in a manner that is counterproductive to resolution.

No, you will not likely be taking this matter to trial. That would be far too costly, and take far too much time for everyone involved, especially where the legal issues are just not that complex. In the meantime, counsel should put together practical solutions, and leave all the hot air for the sauna.

Unfortunately that is not what occurs in civil litigation, even though the pandemic would appear to call for such practical common sense more than ever. . . . [more]

By Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

The vague yet intriguing title of the case, in the Matter of B, 2020 ONSC 7563 (CanLII), foretells some of the secrecy and confidentiality of the facts behind the matter. The Honourable Barbara A. Campbell, Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice authors an interesting decision sure to please any aficionado of the law of evidence. In it, she considers whether an employment agreement’s confidentiality clause sufficiently shields an employee from testifying about his or her employer in an investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission. Does the clause render the information . . . [more]

In July 2020, the Ontario Legislative Assembly enacted new legislation governing the provision of legal aid in the province, Legal Aid Services Act, 2020 (“2020 Act”). The legislation does not come into force until it has been proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor and that won’t happen until new rules have been finalized. The board of Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) (called “the Corporation” under the 2020 Act) has the authority under section 46 of the 2020 Act to make rules governing the provision of legal aid. The proposed rules are currently available for comment on Legal Aid Ontario’s website (more on that . . . [more]

Over a year ago, the provincial government introduced new emergency leaves for workers sick from COVID-19. This was soon followed by special provisions for termination and severance under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), which many people speculated was likely unenforceable and would be deemed constructive dismissal.

Justice Broad of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently dismissed a motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2021, in Coutinho v. Ocular Health Centre Ltd., where the defendant unsuccessfully attempted to rely on these special termination provisions. This is likely the first reported decision in Ontario to interpret these regulations. . . . [more]

By Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, HRinfodesk

Sometimes just doing enough is insufficient. In a nutshell, this was the decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in Liquor Control Board of Ontario v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2021 CanLII 15607 (ON LRB) when it ruled on the employer’s measures in combatting COVID-19, which were deemed insufficient by a health and safety investigator. . . . [more]

In 2000, in an article in the UNB Law Journal (Vol. 49, 169) about section 33, entitled “Section 33 of the Charter: What’s the Problem, Anyway? (Or, Why A Feminist Thinks Section 33 Does Matter)” I said, “Whatever merits it might have, dressed up as a means to represent the will of the people against the follies of unelected courts, recourse to section 33 may actually legitimate the continuation of prejudice.” (p.169) Bill 21 (SQ 2019, c12), An Act respecting the laicity of the State, illustrates the scope of section 33 to have a significant impact on freedom of . . . [more]

Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

At first glance, Abbasbayli v Fiera Foods Company, 2021 ONCA 95 appears to be concerned mainly with the law around striking pleadings. On further analysis, however, it offers important advice to employers on the matter of personal liability of corporate directors. . . . [more]

By Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta, Kvaska v Gateway Motors (Edmonton) Ltd., 2020 AHRC 94, confirms the law on accommodation of alcohol addiction. In this case, the human rights complaint of a dismissed employee was upheld. The Tribunal offers important advice to employers in how to deal with such difficult situations. The risk in not doing so is potentially costly: in this case, $30,000 in general damages, lost short-term disability benefits, lost wages and interest were awarded. . . . [more]

Civil litigation can be an expensive ordeal. In many circumstances, it’s not entirely clear that either side has the resources to go the full distance for an entire trial, and with competent counsel and reasonable parties, it’s frequently not necessary to do so.

For every step along the way though, there are still expenses to be incurred. Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario allows a party to see security for costs, typically where another party is ordinarily a resident outside of Ontario, there is a duplicity of proceedings elsewhere, other costs remain unpaid, there is good . . . [more]