Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies, (1998) 116 O.A.C. 225 (CA)

• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 02, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 116 O.A.C. 225 (CA)

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies (1998), 116 O.A.C. 225 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.034

Mary Danyluk (plaintiff/appellant) v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., Ainsworth Electric Co. Limited, F. Jack Purchase, Paul S. Gooderham, Jack A. Taylor, Ross A. Pool, Donald W. Roberts, Timothy I. Pryor, Clifford J. Ainsworth, John F. Ainsworth, Kenneth D. Ainsworth, Melville O'Donohue and Donald J. Hawthorne, William I. Welsh and Joseph McBride Watson (defendants/respondents)

(C25176)

Indexed As: Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Morden, A.C.J.O., Rosenberg, J.A.,

and Spence, J.(ad hoc)

December 2, 1998.

Summary:

Danyluk filed a complaint with the Minis­try of Labour, Employment Standards Branch, regarding unpaid wages, including entitlement to a very large commission. An employment standards officer determined that Danyluk was not entitled to the com­mission. Rather than appeal this finding within the administrative structure, Danyluk brought a civil action for damages for wrongful dismissal and for unpaid wages and commissions. The employer argued that the claim for entitlement to commissions and unpaid wages was barred by issue estoppel.

The Ontario Court (General Division) held that issue estoppel applied and struck out the paragraphs of the statement of claim respecting unpaid wages and commissions. Danyluk appealed on the grounds that the employment standards officer's decision was neither judicial nor final and that she had been denied natural justice by the employ­ment standards officer.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 612

The hearing and decision - Disclosure by tribunal - Of investigative results - Danyluk filed a complaint with the Minis­try of Labour - An employment standards officer (officer) investigated the case - The employer's solicitors responded to the claim in a letter that included a number of documents to substantiate its position - The officer did not provide this material to Danyluk or ask her to respond to it - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the officer failed to act judicially in denying Danyluk the opportunity to know the case against her and have an opportunity to meet it - See paragraphs 7, 29, 51 to 52.

Administrative Law - Topic 2278

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Remedies - General - Danyluk filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour regarding unpaid wages, including entitle­ment to a very large commission - An employment standards officer determined that Danyluk was not entitled to the com­mission - Rather than appeal this finding within the administrative structure, Dany­luk brought a civil action for dam­ages for wrongful dismissal and for unpaid wages and commissions - A motions judge held that issue estoppel applied to the issues of unpaid wages and commis­sions - Danyluk claimed that she had been denied natural justice - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the employment stan­dards officer failed to act judicially, but that Danyluk's recourse was to seek review of the of­ficer's decision.

Administrative Law - Topic 2617

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Disclosure - [See Administrative Law - Topic 612 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 6106

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Gen­eral - Final order or decision - What con­stitutes - [See Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - Danyluk filed a complaint with the Minis­try of Labour regarding unpaid wages, including entitlement to a very large com­mission - An employment standards officer determined that Danyluk was not entitled to the commission - Rather than appeal this finding within the administra­tive struc­ture, Danyluk brought a civil action for damages for wrongful dismissal and for unpaid wages and commissions - A mo­tions judge held that issue estoppel applied to the issues of unpaid wages and commis­sions - Danyluk appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the decision of the employ­ment standards officer was neither judicial nor final - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Master and Servant - Topic 8323

Employment and labour standards - Enforcement - Civil actions - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2278 ].

Cases Noticed:

Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v. Rayner and Keeler Ltd. and Others (No. 2), [1966] 2 All E.R. 536 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 3, foot­note 1].

Rasanen v. Rosemount Instruments Ltd. (1994), 68 O.A.C. 284; 17 O.R.(3d) 267 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 178 N.R. 80; 77 O.A.C. 320; 19 O.R.(3d) 16 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 17].

Heynen v. Frito-Lay Canada Ltd. et al. (1997), 50 O.T.C. 179; 32 C.C.E.L.(2d) 183 (Gen. Div.), agreed with [para. 37].

Dubreuil v. Dubreuil Forest Products Ltd. (1995), 12 C.C.E.L.(2d) 127 (Ont. Gen. Div.), agreed with [para. 37].

Wong v. Shell Canada Ltd. (1995), 174 A.R. 287; 102 W.A.C. 287; 15 C.C.E.L.(2d) 182 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1996), 205 N.R. 314; 193 A.R. 80; 135 W.A.C. 80 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 4].

Randhawa v. Everest & Jennings Canadian Ltd. (1996), 7 O.T.C. 28; 22 C.C.E.L.(2d) 19 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671; 78 C.L.L.C. 14,181, refd to. [para. 42].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplin­ary Board (No. 2), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 42].

Coopers and Lybrand v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495; 24 N.R. 163, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 5].

Downing v. Graydon et al. (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 292 (C.A.), appld. [para. 44].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 56; 26 N.R. 364; [1979] 3 W.W.R. 676; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 54].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 54].

Susan Shoe Industries Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) et al. (1994), 70 O.A.C. 347; 18 O.R.(3d) 660 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al. (1998), 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 67].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­dation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 68].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment Standards Act, S.O. 1996, c. 23, sect. 6(1) [para. 11]; sect. 67(7) [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bower, G. Spencer, and Turner, A.K., The Doctrine of Res Judicata (2nd Ed. 1969), p. 143 [para. 32].

Counsel:

Howard A. Levitt and J. Michael Mulroy, for the appellant;

John E. Brooks and Rita Samson, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on October 5 and 6, 1998, before Morden, A.C.J.O., Rosenberg, J.A., and Spence, J.(ad hoc), of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Rosenberg, J.A., delivered the following judgment on December 2, 1998.