Susan Shoe Industries Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) et al., (1994) 70 O.A.C. 347 (CA)

• Judge: Catzman, Osborne and Labrosse, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 11, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1994), 70 O.A.C. 347 (CA)

Susan Shoe Ind. Ltd. v. Ont. (1994), 70 O.A.C. 347 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Susan Shoe Industries Limited (applicant/respondent) v. Anthony Ricciardi and Derek Hine (respondents/appellants)

(C14428)

Indexed As: Susan Shoe Industries Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Catzman, Osborne and Labrosse, JJ.A.

May 20, 1994.

Summary:

An employee sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal and for severance pay pursuant to the Employment Standards Act. The trial judge, in a decision reported 28 C.C.E.L. 179; 71 O.R.(2d) 438 (H.C.), held that the employee was entitled to six months' notice, but dismissed the claim for severance pay, stating the claim should be made to the Director under the Employment Standards Act. The employee applied to the Ministry of Labour claiming severance pay. An em­ployment standards officer allowed the application. The employer applied to quash the employment standards officer's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 54 O.A.C. 144, allowed the appli­cation, holding that the matter was res judicata. The employment standards officer appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8350 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8350

Employment and Labour Standards - Powers of tribunal or officers - Excess of jurisdiction - A trial judge dismissed an employee's wrongful dismissal action and his claim for severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, stating that the claim should be brought under the Act - The employee applied for severance pay under the Act - The employment standards officer ordered the employer to pay sever­ance allowance - The Ontario Divisional Court quashed the officer's order, holding that the matter was res judicata - The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the decision - The trial judge correctly did not rule on the merits of the claim for sever­ance pay, and declined jurisdiction, where claims to entitlement should be determined by specialized officers under the Act.

Cases Noticed:

Tak Ming Co. v. Yee Sang Metal Supplies Co., [1973] 1 All E.R. 569 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

D.S.V. Silo-Und Verwaltungsgesellschaft MBH v. Owners of the Ship Sennar, [1985] 2 All E.R. 104; 61 N.R. 149 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-14, generally [para. 2].

Counsel:

Leah Price and Andrea Esson, for A. Ric­ciardi;

Norman Keith, Mark Mills and Susan Crawford, for Susan Shoe Industries Ltd.;

Thomas A. Stefanik and Bernie McGarva, for D. Hine.

This appeal was heard on May 11, 1994, before Catzman, Osborne and Labrosse, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On May 20, 1994, the decision of the court endorsed on the appeal record was as fol­lows: