- 21 -to work for the defendant. Leyda (Bonnie) Wills quit the travel industry, not just the defendant’semploy, introducing the possibility that she had had enough of the travel business and alsoclouding the picture. Tina Kennedy, the junior person, remained almost two more years beforemoving on. Overall, their circumstances do not provide a clear indication that the objective testfor constructive dismissal is met.[136] There is no dispute that the plaintiff’s symptoms were real. Defence counseladmitted this. However, no definitive cause was established. She attributed them to thedefendant’s office environment. Dr. Beck and Counsellor Collins-Maskel accepted thisuncritically. No further investigation was done. The job was inherently stressful and otherfactors such as financial challenges and pre-existing health conditions were noted. Indeed, hermental condition deteriorated after she went on her stress leave, suggesting other factors exertedsome influence. In any event, the plaintiff’s subjective assessment of her situation is not relevantwhere the test is an objective one.2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII)[137] VACATION PAY[138] The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has wrongfully refused to pay outstandingvacation pay owing to her for the year 2006.[139] The plaintiff referred to Exhibit 1, Tab 32 which is a series of calendars and notesfrom 2003 through 2006. I understand that the notes are in Roberta Pozniak’s handwriting.[140] The January, 2006 calendar has the notation on it, “Plus 10 vacation days” at boththe top and bottom of the page. The plaintiff said that this was her entitlement from 2005.[141] The February, 2006 calendar has 10 vacation days shown at the top. February 10,2006 is marked as a vacation day and a further notation at the bottom of the February, 2006calendar page says, “Plus nine vacation days”.[142] There is no change until June, 2006 which shows nine vacation days at the topand two days marked “Vac Pd”.[143] The next page is the October, 2006 calendar which shows four vacation days atthe top, one day taken as vacation, and the notation, “Plus three vacation days” at the bottom.[144] The November, 2006 calendar show no vacation days taken, leaving the threedays remaining.[145] The December, 2006 calendar shows these vacation days being taken, and noneremaining.
- 22 -[146] The plaintiff’s explanation was that she had to work a year to earn vacation time.The ten days were earned in 2005 and used up in 2006. In 2006, she earned two more weeks ofvacation for use in 2007.[147] Roberta Pozniak’s evidence was that the pattern the plaintiff alleges in which hervacation pay is earned in one year for use in the next had been in place for a few years, but hadchanged at some point. After that, the plaintiff was using the vacation time in the year that sheearned it. Therefore, the plaintiff had used her 2006 vacation in 2006. She had been paid thevacation pay earned in January and February, 2007 (i.e. up to the day the plaintiff left thedefendant’s employment).[148] However, Exhibit 6 is a January, 2007 calendar showing ten vacation days at thetop of the page.2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII)[149] Roberta Pozniak’s explanation is inconsistent with the notations on the calendars,and the plaintiff’s explanation is preferred. The plaintiff’s version is also consistent with s. 33(1)of the Employment Standards Act, which says:“An employer shall give an employee a vacation of at least two weeks after eachvacation entitlement year that he or she completes.[150] The plaintiff’s income tax return for 2006, found at Exhibit 1, Tab 27, showsemployment income of $24,450. She is entitled to four percent of that for vacation pay, being$978, payable forthwith.[151] COSTS[152] In view of the mixed success and the apparent modest financial resources of theplaintiff, each party shall bear its own costs.**********___________________________Justice James A. S. Wilcox
- Page 1 and 2:
The Labour Relations BoardSaskatche
- Page 3 and 4: 3unionized workforce at their plant
- Page 5 and 6: 5[15] In addition, there was some h
- Page 7 and 8: 7Employee “D”: He was on his pr
- Page 9 and 10: 9[37] The Board did not have the be
- Page 11 and 12: 11[48] Shortly after Mr. Copeland b
- Page 13 and 14: 13credible reason for the disciplin
- Page 15 and 16: 15outlined by the Board in RWDSU v.
- Page 17 and 18: 173. Order for captive audience mee
- Page 19 and 20: 19for his failure to produce the wi
- Page 21 and 22: 21[95] Similarly as noted in the qu
- Page 23 and 24: 23[103] Also, in The Newspaper Guil
- Page 25 and 26: 25rights under the Act. The Employe
- Page 27 and 28: 27The determination of whether, in
- Page 29 and 30: 29respect to the section of the Alb
- Page 31 and 32: 31meetings, would have been within
- Page 33 and 34: 33[143] In respect of the complaint
- Page 35 and 36: - 2 -[2] The plaintiff, Susan Chart
- Page 37 and 38: - 4 -by the time she finished there
- Page 39 and 40: - 6 -[24] Testimony was received fr
- Page 41 and 42: - 8 -would feel grateful for the fo
- Page 43 and 44: - 10 -[49] 2. Comfortable, even tem
- Page 45 and 46: - 12 -[67] Another complaint was th
- Page 47 and 48: - 14 -bottom of the problem and the
- Page 49 and 50: - 16 -member about something amusin
- Page 51 and 52: - 18 -[111] Given that the meeting
- Page 53: - 20 -[130] Some of the plaintiff
- Page 57 and 58: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIOBETWEENC
- Page 59 and 60: Page: 3[5] In his application, the
- Page 61 and 62: Page: 5(c) By the Employer at any t
- Page 63 and 64: Page: 7continuation, in the amount
- Page 65 and 66: Page: 9D. ANALYSIS[23] It is well-s
- Page 67 and 68: Page: 11[28] The appellant submits
- Page 70 and 71: Page: 14[37] When parties contract
- Page 72 and 73: Page: 16addressing the issue of a c
- Page 74 and 75: Page: 18application of mitigation:
- Page 76 and 77: Page: 202008 ONCA 479, 91 O.R. (3d)
- Page 78 and 79: Page: 22[56] Notably, the concern e
- Page 80 and 81: Page: 24termination without cause,
- Page 82 and 83: Page: 26[64] The costs on the appli
- Page 84 and 85: The parties agree this Board has th
- Page 86 and 87: Mr. Wallace. The evidence is that M
- Page 88 and 89: Mr. Mutter and Mr. Wallace each tes
- Page 90 and 91: Mutter spoke. He testified he was a
- Page 92 and 93: saw (or was told by the crew) Mr. K
- Page 94 and 95: and heard, as well as other factors
- Page 96 and 97: When viewed in that light, it is fa
- Page 98 and 99: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
- Page 100 and 101: Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP P
- Page 102 and 103: Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP P
- Page 104 and 105:
Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP P
- Page 106 and 107:
Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP P
- Page 108 and 109:
Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP P
- Page 111 and 112:
Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP P
- Page 113 and 114:
Page 2of the immediate problem that
- Page 115 and 116:
Page 4- He admitted that he had pla
- Page 117 and 118:
Page 626 26. The Grievor's conduct
- Page 119 and 120:
Page 8he had a problem with was fro
- Page 121 and 122:
Page 10supervisor. Counsel argued t
- Page 123 and 124:
Page 12hope to gain a financial ben
- Page 125 and 126:
Page 1483 83. McKinley is an import
- Page 127 and 128:
Page 16(iv)Has the employer attempt
- Page 129 and 130:
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
- Page 131 and 132:
[1] This is an Application under se
- Page 133 and 134:
[10] Sean McKay also testified on b
- Page 135 and 136:
THE LAW[19] Section 5 of the Code p
- Page 137 and 138:
that ensued. There is no evidence t
- Page 139 and 140:
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
- Page 141 and 142:
[1] The applicant has filed two App
- Page 143 and 144:
CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS[11] The ap
- Page 145 and 146:
tasks beyond his functional limits
- Page 147 and 148:
do what they can and that if someon
- Page 149 and 150:
checking summaries before stating t
- Page 151 and 152:
Roehl in June or to the respondent
- Page 153 and 154:
Section 10 of the Code defines hara
- Page 155 and 156:
was assigned duties that required h
- Page 157 and 158:
-last portion of the day he levels
- Page 159 and 160:
[66] I recognize that some of the c
- Page 161 and 162:
was made aware on May 22/07 that hi
- Page 163 and 164:
“To be honest Tony I don’t know
- Page 165 and 166:
is older, or believed that the appl
- Page 167 and 168:
[91] The applicant also submitted t
- Page 169 and 170:
steps to address allegations of dis
- Page 171 and 172:
this period lessening, in my view,
- Page 173 and 174:
[109] The respondent submits that i
- Page 175 and 176:
that the events of May 22 may have
- Page 177:
Accordingly, I am requiring the par