Canada Case Law

Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Katz

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The application is dismissed because the CIRB did not breach procedural fairness: CPKC had asked the CIRB to decide without a hearing, did not request an opportunity to file further submissions after Katz's reply despite ample time, and CPKC failed to establish any basis to overturn the CIRB's reasonable finding that Katz was an employee rather than a manager.

Source excerpt

• Unjust dismissal
• Managerial exclusion
• Procedural fairness
• Judicial review
• Tribunal procedure

Read case analysis

Boua v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the application because the record contained no material evidence of bias and the Board reasonably rejected the late jurisdictional objection given the applicant’s prior position; the Board reasonably found on the evidence that an exchange of consents during the November 25, 2022 mediation established a settlement justifying summary rejection under s.241.2(1)(a)(iii) of the Canada Labour Code; no basis existed to suspend proceedings or to overturn the Board’s fact findings; costs awarded to respondent.

Source excerpt

• Unjust dismissal
• Jurisdiction
• Bias/recusal
• Settlement/mediation
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Costs

Read case analysis

DM v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Tribunal concluded the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the $4,903.85 lump sum was other than employment-related income; therefore the total $10,306.49 constituted earnings under the EI Regulations and had to be allocated beginning the week of termination (week of November 19, 2023) at the prescribed weekly rate.

Source excerpt

• Allocation of earnings
• Severance pay
• Settlement agreements
• Unjust dismissal

Read case analysis

Theriault v. Atlantic Towing Limited

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Board reasonably concluded that the essential nature of the complaint was an unjust dismissal claim grounded in the employer's refusal of a religious exemption to a vaccination policy, which meant the complaint would be essentially the same as one for which redress was available under the Canadian Human Rights Act and thus paragraph 242(3.1)(b) required the Board to decline jurisdiction; the Board's delay in raising the jurisdictional issue, while unfortunate, did not breach procedural fairness or negate the statutory bar.

Source excerpt

• Unjust dismissal
• Jurisdiction
• Statutory interpretation
• Procedural fairness
• Amendment of complaint
• Timeliness

Read case analysis

Kaseke v. Toronto Dominion Bank

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Board correctly declined jurisdiction because paragraph 242(3.1)(b) of the Canada Labour Code bars it from considering unjust dismissal complaints where the Canadian Human Rights Act provides a procedure for redress; the complaint’s core allegations fall within the CHRA’s scope, the CHRA offers real redress comparable to Part III remedies, and the applicant could have sought relief from the Commission within statutory time limits; accordingly the judicial review application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Unjust dismissal
• Jurisdictional limits between administrative bodies
• Interpretation of canada labour code s.242(3.1)(b)
• Remedies under the canadian human rights act

Read case analysis

Miawpukek First Nation v. Howse

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review and upheld an unjust-dismissal adjudicator’s reinstatement order for a Miawpukek First Nation employee, while also upholding the refusal of supplemental compensation.

• Unjust dismissal
• Reinstatement
• Remedies
• Frustration of contract
• Costs
• Unjust-dismissal

Read case analysis

Kouridakis v CIBC

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed both judicial review applications, struck inadmissible affidavit passages and unauthenticated exhibits, denied leave to amend, and upheld the Adjudicator’s quantum redetermination.

• Unjust dismissal
• Quantum of damages
• Mitigation of damages
• Judicial review standard of reasonableness
• Admissibility of affidavit evidence
• Admissibility of documents in application record

Read case analysis

Giffen v. TM Mobility Inc.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the adjudicator’s failure to address central arguments about discrimination and compliance with Code maternity provisions was unreasonable; the Court set aside the Federal Court decision and the adjudicator’s disposition (insofar as it dismissed the complaint) and remitted the matter to a differently constituted adjudicator to determine whether the employer’s selection criteria unlawfully discriminated or violated the Code and whether paragraph 242(3.1)(b) bars adjudication given alternative CHRA remedies.

Source excerpt

• Unjust dismissal
• Maternity leave protections
• Jurisdictional limits of adjudicators
• Adverse impact discrimination
• Standard of review
• Remittal

Read case analysis

Desgagnés Marine Petro Inc. c. Broudic

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Court held the arbitral decision was reasonable and not procedurally unfair: the Federal Court of Appeal must defer to the arbitrator's factual findings under the Vavilov standard, and the employer failed to demonstrate a material deficiency in the Council's reasoning or process that would render the decision unreasonable.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Unjust dismissal
• Procedural fairness
• Standard of review
• Arbitration

Read case analysis

Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Sauvé

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, found the adjudicator’s reasons deficient under the Vavilov standard because they failed to demonstrate consideration of legal criteria, relevant evidence and credibility issues, and concluded intervention was justified; the matter was remitted to the same adjudicator (or another if unavailable) for reconsideration with adequate reasons and costs were awarded to the appellant pursuant to column III of Tariff B.

Source excerpt

• Sexual harassment
• Unjust dismissal
• Standard of review - reasonableness
• Administrative reasons and justification (vavilov)
• Burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings
• Remittance

Read case analysis