Ontario's Fixation on Finality Unfairly Hurting Employees

     Once upon a time a dismissed employee who was not provided pay in lieu of notice had a right to file a complaint with the Employment Standards Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Labour and later bring a civil action for wrongful dismissal. In the human rights area a unionized employee whose rights under the Human Rights Code were violated by the employer or bargaining agent could find refuge at the Ontario Human Rights Commission.  Those rights or avenues for redress have been abolished. 

     It all started with a judgement by the Court of Appeal for Ontario - Rasanen  v.  Rosemount Instruments Limited (1993) (Ont.C.A.)  In Rasenen (supra) the employer was restructuring its operation and offered Mr. Rasenen two alternatives - a relocation to Calgary at the same status and pay or stay in Toronto in a lower status job with potentially higher pay - as the second job involved some commissions.  Mr. Rasenen rejected both options and resigned claiming constructive dismissal.  He then filed a claim for termination pay with the Ministry of Labour.  That claim ultimately went to a hearing where the Adjudicator ruled against him finding that he was not entitled to termination or severance pay because he resigned. 

     The majority in Rasenen (supra)  - Madame Justice Abella and Associate Chief Justice Morden, as he was then, ruled to dismiss the plaintiff, Mr. Rasanen's case, on the basis of issue estoppel.  Mr. Justice Carthy, who also dismissed the appeal, determined that issue estoppel did not apply in the circumstances but found that in the circumstances of the case the plaintiff was not contructively dismissed.  Mr. Justice Carthy's ruling and analysis rejecting the application of issue estoppel mirrors the fairness concerns expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Penner  v.  Niagara Region Police Service. 

     The Rasenen ruling put a clear chill in employees to make use of the remedial legislation which their elected officials had passed to provide them with basic terms and conditions of employment.  Fewer and fewer employees looked to the Ministry of Labour and elected to sue for wrongful dismissal.  Surprisingly, the Supreme Court of Canada makes note of this phenomenon in Penner  v.  Niagara Region Police Service.

The Codification of Issue Estoppel:

Employment Standards Act

     As if Rasanen was not bad enough the Ontario Government went on to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Human Rights Code to incorporate issue estoppel-type provisions.  The Employment Standards Act actually prohibits employees who bring a claim for termination pay etc. under the Act to bring a civil action seeking a remedy for the same dismissal.(see s.97(2))  In addition, the Act expressly provides that once an employee brings a claim under the Act they can only withdraw same within two weeks of the filing of the complaint. (see s.97(4))

Human Rights Code

     The amendments to the Human Rights Code incorporating issue estoppel-type provisions appear to be motivated by a desire for finality in legal proceedings.  Whether intentional or otherwise they appear to be depriving a significant group of workers their rights in both the collective bargaining forum and their stututory rights under the Human Rights Code.  Collective agreements are between a bargaining agent/union and an employer.  Accordingly, when a union and an employer make a "sweet-heart deal" to "resolve all of an employees grievances" they do not typically need the workers consent.  The worker, whose grievance has not been dealt with, then tries to bring a human rights complaint and is confronted by the following statutory provision:

"s.45.1 - The Tribunal may, in whole or in part, dismiss with an appllication in accordance with its Rules, if in its opinion, another proceeding has appropriately dealt with in the substance of the application."

     The legal effect of this statutory provision for workers covered by collective agreements is to render what ever individual rights they may have under the Human Rights Code purely illusory.  They have rights on paper but not in reality.  Our lawmakers have made the employer and the unions the gatekeepers of those rights.  They are at liberty to dispense them as they see fit.  Put another way - a worker with a human rights-type grievance has no rights that an employer or a union must respect and good luck taking the issue to the Divisional Court.  I invite readers to review the decisions of the HRTO involving unionized workers and their human rights complaints and any judicial review applications on this subject at our Divisional Court. The consistency of the dismissal of these complaints is troubling to say the least.





    



     

            

Issue Estoppel, Judicial Discretion and Access to Justice

    In this two part post I wish to shed some light on what appears to me to be a growing trend - the application of the doctrine of issue estoppel and judicial discretion which has the effect of denying individuals access to our courts.  In the first post I will look at the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Penner   v.  Niagara Region Police Service with a view to illustrating the ideological ridgidity which more often than not renders the rights of the majority of Ontarians illusory when it comes to asserting their rights against police defendants.  In the second post I will illustrate how the Ontario Legislature has implemented issue-estoppel-type statutory enactments to the Employment Standards Act and the Human Rights Code which have the effect of denying a significant quantity of workers access to our courts.

     In Penner   v.  Niagara Region Police Service et al the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in law in exercising its discretion when it upheld the dismissal of Mr. Penner's action on the basis of issue estoppel arising from the dismissal of his misconduct complaint under the Police Services Act.  The Court of Appeal applied the recognized test from Danyluk   v.  Ainesworth Technologies [2001] 2 S.C.R. 462; Minott   v.  O'Shanter (1999) 42 O.R. (3d) 321 (Ont.C.A.) and determined that the Police Services Act misconduct hearing and the action involved - 1.  the same question (parties agreed that the subject decision was final) and 3. same parties and found that the lower court had properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the action based on issue estoppel.  The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge erred in law in failing to consider the question of why it was not appropropriate to not apply issue estoppel in the case and went on to deal with this issue.

     The Court of Appeal - in applying a narrow and simplistic analysis as distinct from the broad and purpose-driven analysis employed by the Supreme Court of Canada - effectively denied Mr. Penner access to a remedy in the courts.  The key difference in the approach employed by the two levels of courts lies in the level of scrutiny they each subjected the Danyluk (supra) requirements to.  Unlike the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada took the additional step and considered the nature and purpose of each legislative scheme along with the reasonable expectations of the parties.  In applying this approach the Supreme Court of Canada found that the Court of Appeal erred in the exercise of its discretion in appplying issue estoppel to the facts of this case on two grounds.  The first is found in the following quote from the Court of Appeal judgment on the issue of Mr. Penner's financial stake in the discipline proceeding:

Financial stake in the
Disciplinary Hearing:

     "This is an important consideration weighing against applying issue estoppel, but its
strength is diminished by the potential indirect benefit to Mr. Penner from the disciplinary proceedings.  If,  for example, the hearing officer had found that the two police officers did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Mr. Penner or used excessive force on him, those findings would likely have estopped the officers from asserting otherwise in Mr. Penner's civil action.  In other words, issue estoppel works both ways." 

     The Supreme Court found that this analysis was flawed since the the Police Services Act requires misconduct to be "proved on clear and convincing evidence" while Mr. Penner's civil case must be proved on the lower balance of probabilities standard.  Accordingly, it did not follow that an acquittal under the higher standard could not lead to a finding of liability on the lower civil standard in Mr. Penner's civil action.

Role of the Chief of Police:

     Surprisingly, the Supreme Court went on to identify an additional ground which was not before the Court of Appeal in support of not applying the doctrine of issue estoppel in this case.  The Court noted that under the public complaints process of the PSA at the relevant time the Chief of Police appointed the investigator, the prosecutor and the hearing officer.  The Court reasoned that there was an inherent unfairness in employing the adverse decision from a discipline hearing held in these circumstances to absolve the Chief of Police and others from civil liability.  This is what the majority said on this point:

     [66] "Applying issue estoppel against the complainant here had the effect of permitting the Chief of Police to become the judge of his own case, with the result that his designate's decision had the effect of exonerating the Chief and his police service from civil liability.  In our view, applying issue estoppel here is a serious afront to basic principles of fairness."

Commentary:

     Justice must always be dispensed with a fair and even hand.  Anything less is not justice at all.  The exercise of judicial discretion like justice must always be exercised with a fair and even hand.  Depriving an individual access to our courts who seeks redress against the police for civil and constitutional wrongs allegedly committed against that individual simply because an inferior tribunal with a very different statutory function, purpose and level of proof dismissed his complaint is just plain wrong - fairness must always trump finality.  I believe this is precisely what the late Mr. Justice Bora Laskin meant when he said that "law without compassion is void."

    

Employer Checklist for Avoiding Punitive Damages

     It used to be that punitive damage awards in employment related cases was something that only happened in the U.S.  However, decisions such as Pate and MacNeil from the Court of Appeal for Ontario established that employers must be mindfull of the potential for such claims.  Here is a simple checklist of things to avoid.

1.     Avoid reporting criminal conduct to the police based on speculation or bad faith;

       Many employers are of the mistaken belief that simply reporting a crime to the police will not lead to potential civil liability.  This is not entirely correct.  An employer can be found to have initiated criminal proceedings even thought they did did swear the information charging the employee with a crime.  The question as to whether the employer can be found to have "initiated criminal proceedings" as that term is used in the malicious prosecution jurisprudence depends on whether the crime is of the type where the facts can be said to be pecuiliarly within the knowlede of the party seeking police assistance.  Courts have concluded that employers did not "initiate criminal proceedings" by mere reporting in cases involving complicated frauds requiring complex investigation in order to acertain the facts (Mahon   v.  Rahn [2000] 4 All E.R. 42).   

2.     Avoid asserting cause based on sexual or other forms of harassment in the absence of a fair and thorough investigation supporting the allegation - especially where your own polices call for such;

3.     Obtain legal advice touching on the strenght of the allegations of cause and the potential costs associated with an action from the employee prior to dismissal.  Where the allegations of cause involve criminal conduct you will want to consult with a lawyer with knowledge of criminal and tort law.
 

Most Serious Mistake Dismissed Employees Make

     The importance of getting legal advice following the termination of one's employment and prior to signing-off on a settlement can not be stressed enough.  All too often dismissed employees end up being bound by post-termination settlements which they often wish they had never pursued.  All too often it is too late to correct their error.  Sometimes this failure on the part of employees stems from their fear of the cost associated with getting legal advice.  In an effort to tackle this fear I thought it helpful to set out in plain language my fees for such consultation along with the service I provide for it.  I hope it is helpful.

Fee:

     $1,000 plus HST = $1,130 - payable at the visit.  In my experience it is common practice for bigger employers to indemnify employees for this cost.

Service provided:

Work history:

      I probe the client's work history in order to ascertain the reason for the termination of employment.  The reason is not always the reason stated by the employer.  If cause is
alleged I seek to ascertain in a preliminary way the strength of this cause.  Anyone can
assert cause but cause for dismissal requires cogent proof from the employer.  Have
there been warnings, performance appraisals, etc.  Does the company have an Employee
Handbook or similar document which sets out company policies on termination and
discipline ?  Was this policy followed ?  Does the nature of the cause alleged raise issues
of impairing your future employment opportunities?

Employment Standards Act:

     I probe compliance with the Employment Standards Act - termination pay, vacation pay and overtime pay.

Human Rights Codes:

     I also probe the possibility of the dismissal being motivated by a prohibited ground of discrimination - such as race, sex or age.

Jurisdiction:

     For employees covered by the Canada Labour Code - Part III - I inform them of the Unjust Dismissal provisions of that legislation.  It provides employees with a right similar to unionized workers in that they can be reinstated following a hearing before a Canada Labour Code Adjudicator.

Employment Insurance:

     Employees whose employment is terminated on account of "misconduct" are typically denied coverage.  I explain the process to employees in terms of what to expect and how to protect their right to benefits by communicating their version of the facts to the E.I. agent.  The agent is obligated to hear both sides of the dispute.  It is critical that the employee provides their side to the agent. If your claim is denied you have a right to an appeal hearing before a Board of Referees and be represented by a lawyer. I have often represented clients in these proceedings.

Disability Insurance etc.:

     For employees suffering with illness or disability at the time of the dismissal issues of coverage and medical treatment become paramount concerns.  I probe the cause of the disability and illness and provide advice on protecting what ever rights the employee may have.      


CONTACT INFO:

      I am available for consultation and would be pleased to assist you.  Here is my contact info:

Ernest J. Guiste, Trial & Appeal Lawyer, 2 County Court Blvd., Suite 494, Brampton, ON, L6W 3W8
Tel. (416) 364-8908

ERNEST J. GUISTE, TRIAL & APPEAL LAWYER - NEW LOCATION - MOVED

       My office is now located at:

2 COUNTY COURT BLVD., SUITE 494, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, L6W 3W8.

Telephone and Fax numbers remain the same.

Tel.(416) 364-8908   - Fax (416) 364-0973

E Mail: ejguiste@yahoo.com


I will continue to represent clients in the following areas of practice:

- Criminal (LAO accepted)
- Employment - Human Rights
- Administrative law
- Personal Injury - and
- Insurance

Justice Kofi Barnes Elevated to Superior Court

      On Thursday, February 28th, 2013 Justice Kofi Barnes was sworn in as a Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario in a ceremony held at the Superior Court of Justice in Brampton.  Justice Barnes who was originally appointed to the Ontario Court of Justice in 2004 brings a wealth of knowledge in criminal law to the Superior Court in Brampton.      

Failure to address language impediment results in s.10(b) violation

      

 Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that;
 Everyone has the right on arrest or detention to be informed of;                    
 (b)  the right to retain and instruct counsel and to be informed of that right.


In R  v.  Soares 2013 O.J. No. 72 (Trotter J.) I had the opportunity to argue what I long observed to be a flagarent pattern and practice of police services in this province failing to discharge the constitutional duty placed on them to ensure that defendants whose language is not english are informed of their right to retain and instruct counsel. In fairness to the individual officers I must indicate that the problem is one rooted in the inadequacy of the training they are provided rather than any mala fides on their part as individuals. The genesis of the problem appears to stem from a mis-conception of precisely what is required to successfully discharge the state duty in preserving or giving meaning to this fundamental right.

It is not enough to simply "parot off" a statement written on the back of one's memobook and provide a defendant with a phone to call duty counsel.  This is especially so when it is evident that the defendant speaks a language other than english and is not fluent in english.  The right to counsel has two components.  The first is the right to retain and instruct counsel. This right is often popularly referred to as "right to a phone call".  The second and perhaps more significant right is the right to "to be informed of that right."  The first right can never be said to be granted unless the second right, namely, the right to be informed is properly discharged.  Accordingly, where a defendant has a clear deficiency in the english language it may be necessary for the officer to take affirmative steps by providing a translator to ensure that the defendant understands the right to counsel and can communicate and express himself properly.

In R  v.  Soares supra the defendant - whose mother tongue was Portuguese and spoke with an obvious accent and inability to express himself effectively in english was charged with a series of historical sex-related charges(roughly ten years old). The defendant was arrested at his home by two officers.  The arresting officer took a video-taped statement from him touching directly on the allegations which were the subject of his arrest and charge without any effort to ascertain his competence in the english language and whether a translator may be necessary for the purpose of her interrogation. 

I argued for the exclusion of the statement on the basis that the defendant's command of the language was deficient to the point where without an interpreter he could not exercise his right to counsel and decide whether or not to give the statement.  In addition to the defendant's obvious lack of comprehension when the officer used colloquial language or methaphors the trial judge referenced the following passage in concluding that the defendant's rights under s.10(b) were violated by the manner in which the officer conducted the interview:

[21]  Officer:   Okay.  But it is fair to say you're - you don't wanna - you don't wanna go into the details about it ?

Soares:  Please

Officer:  Why ?  Because it's too harto to talk about ?

Soares:  Is hard is like talking to you kow, is hard for me.  Plus my English not right - is no - no good - good - good enough

Officer:  Well I think we're - we're talking okay, here.  You - you've understood everything this morning that's happened.  But I understand if you don't wanna uh, discuss it any further too. So are are we done, are we - ?

Soares:  Yeah.                              

The Ruling:

[23]  In all of the circumstances, I found that Mr. Soares's rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter were infringed by the manner in which Ms. Peters conducted the interview.  It should have been clear from the outset, when the police first encountered Mr. Soares, that there was a language issue.  This should have prompted the arresting officers to inquire into Mr. Soare's facility with the English language:  R  v. Vanstceghem (1987) , 36 C.C.C. (3d) 142 (Ont.C.A.), at pp. 147-149.  If it was not apparent at the outset, it became crystal clear during the interview.  There were a number of times that language presented itself as an issue.  When Mr. Soares finally raised the issue himself, saying that his English was not good enough, instead of asking him if he would like an interpreter, Ms. Peters simply asserted that there was no problem, and then brought the interview to a speedy conclusion.

[26]   ....More fundamentally, in the context of a police interrogation, there is more to communication than just comprehension; an accused person must be able to participate in a meaningful way, expressing himself or herself effectively.  This was lacking in this case.

[32]  On the facts of this case, each of the Grant factors points in the direction of exclusion.  Accordingly, I find that the admission of the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute within the meaning of s.24(2) of the Charter.