The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Most of Arbitrator's $500,000 Damage Award Survives Judicial Review

by David Doorey February 28, 2011
written by David Doorey February 28, 2011

Last April, I noted an arbitration award by well-respected labour arbitrator Owen Shime in which the employer was ordered to pay over $500,000 in damages to an employee dismissed without just cause.  The employer was Greater Toronto Airport Authority, and here is the arbitrator’s award.  Predictably, the employer sought judicial review (like an appeal, for my non-law students) of that decision.
The Ontario Divisional Court recently overturned parts of the decision, but left the majority of the damages award in tact.  Here is the Court’s decision.
It  was written by Justice Swinton, who once taught me labour law at U of T Law School.  She is one of those labour law profs turned judge, so she knows all about arbitration.  She said that the standard of review was “reasonableness”, and that there were no limits in the collective agreement on the arbitrator’s authority to fashion a remedy.
On Shime’s decision ordering $50,000 for mental distress and $50,000 punitive damages:
The Court traced the evolution of the power to order these damages for breach of contract.  For a long time, damages were not available for mental distress arising from breach of contract, unless the contract itself was intended to protect “peace of mind”. such as a wedding services contract.   Or, in the case of an employment contract, the courts said that mental distress could be awarded for breach of an “independent actionable wrong” (i.e. a breach of a distinct contract term other than the term governing how the contract can be dismissed, or a tort).  In Wallace (1997), the SCC said that an employment contract was not a “peace of mind” contract.  In Fidler (2006), the SCC said that an independently actionable wrong was no longer required for mental distress damages.  Instead, if the purpose of the contract was to provide a psychological benefit, then “damages for mental distress would be recoverable if they were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made”.   In Keays (2008), the SCC said that, since Wallace, it has been foreseeable that bad faith in the manner of dismissal would be compensable if the employee can prove mental distress.  Moreover, punitive damages still required an independently actionable wrong.
The Court overturned the punitive damages award of Shime because the employer had not been clearly told the source of the independent actionable wrong during the arbitration hearing, and so had not had a fair opportunity to argue the point, and also because the arbitrator had not clearly explained in the decision what the independent breach was and why punitive damages amounting to $50,000 were necessary for deterrence.
The Court upheld the award for Past and Future economic loss, which amounted to by far and away the bulk of the damage award.  In the end, the grievor was awarded back wages from the date of dismissal and future wages to the date she could have taken early retirement, about 8 years’ salary (less some mitigation amounts).
The Court overturned the award for pain and suffering due to aggravation of the grievor’s knee injury, because there was no evidence to support that award.
The Court approved an award of Mental Suffering, but sent it back the arbitrator to assess the proper amount because Shime combined the mental distress award and the pain and suffering award in calculating the $50,000 amount, and the latter award had been set aside.  The Court rejected the Arbitrator’s finding that a collective agreement is a contract for a psychological benefit.  However, Justice Swinton ruled that Arbitrator Shime acted reasonably in finding that mental suffering was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a discharge that takes place in a manner that is “unjust, unreasonable, and in bad faith”.  So, in other words, it is possible for an arbitrator to award mental suffering damages for bad faith in the manner of dismissal, similar to what now happens in the nonunion setting after the Keays decision.
So, in the end, most of the Award survived the judicial review.  The punitive damages and the pain and suffering relating to the knee injury were set aside. However, the punitive damages may not be completely  dead, as I read the decision, since the Court sent back to Shime not only the task of calculating how much of the $50,ooo award was for mental suffering and how much was for pain and suffering, but also the  “punitive damages issue in light of this decision.”  That suggests that Shime could revisit punitive damages by allowing the parties to argue the independent actionable breach issue. Overall, this is still a big victory for the grievor and the union in this case.
Any thoughts on the outcome of this case?

3 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Guest Blog: Paul Secunda on Wisconsin Governments Attack on Unions
next post
Flora Terah (Wednesday at Osgoode): Inspirational Kenyan Parliamentary Candidate Speaks at Osgoode Hall Law School

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 338 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
Retweet on TwitterDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦 Retweeted
AnthonyForsyt10Anthony Forsyth@AnthonyForsyt10·
2h

If you missed my ⁦@RMIT⁩ lecture on Tuesday here is the text with a recording to follow … Legislating to Rebuild Worker Power: The Industrial Relations Reforms We Need from the Albanese Labor Government - Labour Law Down Under ⁦⁦@RMITCoBL⁩ https://labourlawdownunder.com.au/?p=1042

Reply on Twitter 1560086376703750144Retweet on Twitter 15600863767037501444Like on Twitter 156008637670375014410Twitter 1560086376703750144
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
6h

Old law school friend now works as a lawyer in the Office of the JAG. She is doing basic training, getting crazy fit. I wasn’t aware these lawyers must basically go thru basic training.

Imagine if there was a fitness test for labour and employment lawyers?

Reply on Twitter 1560028418015522817Retweet on Twitter 1560028418015522817Like on Twitter 15600284180155228178Twitter 1560028418015522817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
7h

You’ve seen this article?

Adrienne Cuoto, ‘Clothing Exotic Dancers with Collective Bargaining Rights’, 2006 38-1 Ottawa Law Review 37, 2006 CanLIIDocs 63, <https://canlii.ca/t/2913>

ryan white@ryandwhite12

One of my COVID projects has been working on a history of the Canadian Association of Burlesque Entertainers, the only case I am aware of in which dancers sought unionization in Canada - so I will be watching this carefully (it is rare and exciting) https://twitter.com/grimkim/status/1559995539999031297

Reply on Twitter 1560023264759615499Retweet on Twitter 15600232647596154991Like on Twitter 1560023264759615499Twitter 1560023264759615499
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.