IDRL 320 CASE STUDIES EXAM QUESTIONS ANSWERED CORRECTLY LATEST UPDATE 2026

IDRL 320 CASE STUDIES EXAM QUESTIONS ANSWERED CORRECTLY LATEST UPDATE 2026 Machtinger v HOJ Industries - Answers Worker's contract stated they were not entitled to any reasonable notice of termination in contrast to the ESA. HOJ realized error and paid minimum 4 weeks as per ESA. Worker sued for wrongful dismissal and court was in agreement. It stated that when a term violated the ESA minimum notice, the CL implied term of reasonable notice would take precedence. This was done because if only sanction was minimum notice, employers would have little incentive to comply in the first place. Bardal v Globe and Mail Ltd - Answers A advertising manager was fired after 16 years of service however there was no term in the contract which outlined what worker was entitled to in terms of reasonable notice. This was left for courts to determine. They considered factors such as age, character of employment, length of service, availability of similar jobs and training/skills/qualifications of workers. These factors are the leading authority in judging the length of notice a worker is entitled to. McKinley v BC Tel - Answers Worker did not disclose doctor suggested a med that could help with health issue and instead asked employer to accommodate. Once employer found out, terminated contract stating cause. Court used the principle of proportionality which it must be shown that most likely than not, the dishonesty had occurred and second, if it did occur were the repercussions proportionate to the level of dishonesty? Ruled that summary dismissal was not warranted + worker was entitled to reasonable notice + damages. This was contrary to earlier court decisions that found ANY dishonesty grounds for dismissal. Queen v Cognos Inc - Answers Accepted new job offer, quit current job and moved cities. Org failed to disclose that job was contingent on funding that had not yet been disclosed. Contract stated that worker was entitled to one month's notice. Worker sued for tort of negligent misrepresentation. Court agreed as it was proven that the information in question was misleading/untrue, that the omission was negligent, that the worker depended on this information in which the results were detrimental and there was a duty of care which was contrary to previous decisions in which a duty of care was a more narrow scope. This became the leading case referenced to in Canadian Law regarding this tort in the job recruitment process. R v. Barton upon Irwell - Answers Servant was imprisoned for being disobedient, master requested servant be released, as they were however ended up back in jail for same issue. Servant argued that contract was terminated after first imprisonment. Court disagreed stating that it was within master's power to decide if relationship would continue and that is what the master had decided here. This case showed that low legal status affected the master/servant laws and how this model treated servants as subordinate to their masters. Turner v Mason - Answers Servant was denied time off to visit dying mother however went anyway. Upon returning servant was terminated. Servant argued in court that they were entitled to notice however court disagreed stating that there was a breach when the servant failed to obey a lawful order. Servant was not entitled to reasonable notice. This case highlighted the power imbalance that was entrenched in the master/servant relationship because of the law. Rejdak v The Fight Network Inc - Answers Verbal job offer, talked about salary, job title and start date. Worker accepted the offer but on first day was presented with a written contract which stated that the worker could be terminated without notice during the probation period. Worker argued that they were entitled to the implied term of reasonable notice. Court agreed upholding the verbal agreement and stating that the written contract was not legally enforceable due to the lack of mutual consideration. Lloyd v. Imperial Parking - Answers Worker quit after months of verbal abuse and threats to employment from superior. Sued for constructive dismissal. Courts agreed stating that there was a breach in the obligation to treat employees with decency, civility and respect. This was one of the first cases regarding this breach and set precedent. Farber v Royal Trust - Answers Employer restructured and regional managers job was eliminated but offered a job that was previously held by manager. Manager refused because they assumed dramatic pay cut so quit, and sued for constructive dismissal. Reality was that the job would not have resulted in substantial pay cut. Court agreed stating that precedent had been set that a demotion to a less prestigious job constituted for constructive dismissal. Court used objective test and determined that any reasonable person would have taken the same course of action + no way to know that it would not have resulted in substantial pay cut. Entitle to notice + this case became a leading case that set precedent for 100's of cases to follow. Honda v Keays - Answers Employed for 11 years, provided employer with medical letter. Employer stated that they required the employee be assessed by a doctor of the employers choosing however the employee refused unless the employer could provide the rationale the doctor would use. The employer terminated the contract due to this refusal and did not provide notice. The employee sued for wrongful dismissals and aggravated damages. The court ruled in favour of the employee and then stated that aggravated damages were a possible award in the manner of dismissal if it was harsh enough. This was not the case for this situation however this was a new approach to awarding damages for wrongful dismissals. Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada Post Corp. - Answers Union filed a complaint under human rights legislation regarding pay equity as it was determined that a male dominated occupation that was classified similarly to a female dominated occupation in the organization were paid more. The tribunal ruled in favour of the union and ordered Canada post to equalize the pay rate. The decision was upheld by the supreme court which was a rare decision. Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (1990) - Answers Requested work days off that conflicted with Sabbath, employer denied citing operational needs, worker did not show up and was fired. Filed a complaint under human rights legislation citing discrimination on the grounds of religion. Tribunal ruled in favour of the employee and this decision was upheld by the supreme court stating that the employer failed to prove that the accommodation would cause undue hardship. This was an important case as it helped establish the scope of indirect discrimination contrary to the human rights legislation in regards to religion. British Columbia v. BCGSEU ("Meiorin") (1999) - Answers A female firefighter could not meet the new physical standards that were put in place and the union filed a complaint stating that this policy affected more women than men which was proven to be the case. The tribunal ruled in favour of the worker and the decision was upheld by the supreme court and a new test was implemented. To determine if a standard that is discriminatory is a BFOR 1) Standards must be implemented for a reason rationally connected to the job 2) The standard was implemented in good faith and 3) standard is necessary to accomplish goal and an accommodation would cause undue hardship Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (2000) - Answers Worker had past alcohol issues 7 years ago. Company introduced policy to randomly test workers for banned substances for safety reasons. Worker disclosed previous alcohol dependency and was demoted and told the only way he could resume that job was if he agreed to the randomized testing. Worker filed a complaint under the human rights legislation on the grounds of disability. The tribunal agreed and the supreme court upheld this decision. The BFOR defense failed. The court ruled that substance abuse issues were a form of disability. This is a leading case referenced in Canadian law regarding drug and alcohol testing. Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears - Answers Worker requested a realigned schedule in order to meet religious requirements which required a certain day of the week off. Employer denied request and changed employment status to part time, cut hours and less income. Employee filed a complaint and tribunal ruled in favor of employee and decision was upheld by the supreme court stating that indirect discrimination was now part of Canadian law and intent was no longer required. This is the leading case in which indirect discrimination was acknowledged by the courts. Jones v Tsige (2012) - Answers An employee at a bank was caught looking another employee's bank statements and was disciplined by the bank. Employee brought a tort action against the worker who committed the offence and the court ruled in favour of the harmed employee. The supreme court upheld this decision which was the first time the tort of intrusion upon seclusion was recognized on Ontario. Ford Motor Company v. United Automobile Workers Union (1946) - Answers A strike ensued over contract terms; the union wanted terms in the CA which 1) Would automatically deduct union dues from cheques and remit the money to the union 2) require employees covered by CA to be union members. Judge Rand split the decision deciding that Union dues would be deducted and remitted but employees would not be required to become members. This is known as the "Rand Formula" and has been adopted into CA's across Canada + adopted as law by some provinces. International Woodworkers of America Local 2-69 v. Consolidated Bathurst - Answers After a CA was agreed upon, the employer announced that the plant would be closing. The union filed a complaint to the board citing this was bargaining in bad faith. The board decided in favour of the union stating that the duty to bargain in good faith and disclose relevant information included the requirement to inform the union of plans that may negatively impact the bargaining unit employees in the future. The leading case establishing how much an employer is obligated to disclose information to the union about plans that may negatively impact the bargaining unit employees in the future. Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union v. T. Eaton Company (1985) - Answers Union wanted on master agreement for all stores, employer wanted separate agreements and employer would not pay union employees more than non-union. Union filed a grievance alleging bargaining in bad faith. The board concluded that the employer did not bargain in bad faith and it was exercising its right to use its bargaining power. This was an example of "hard bargaining" that is legal in the eyes of the law. RWDSU Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages - Answers A strike ensued and pickets at the primary place of employment and secondary locations (manager's homes, hotel of replacement workers, retail shops that ordered from pepsi). Some pickets were peaceful while at some locations there was violence. An injunction was put in place to stop all picketing. The supreme court overruled the injunction and, influenced by the Charter, introduce a "wrongful action model" which made secondary picketing only illegal if a crime or tort is committed. Some provinces adopted legislation that restricts the power to impose injunctions to restrict picketing. Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union v. KVP Co. Ltd. (1965) - Answers An employer unilaterally implemented mandatory drug testing policy. Union filed a grievance stating that it was unnecessary and invasive to employees' privacy. The arbitrators' ruled that the employer failed to establish a legitimate need for this policy and this was the case in which the KVP test was created to determine if a unilateral change is acceptable. 1) Must be clear and unequivocal 2) Must be consistent with CA 3) Employees must be made aware of new policy beforehand 4) Must be made aware of the consequences of a breach 5) must be reasonable 6) must be consistently enforced Coca Cola Bottling v. UFCW - Answers Employee was denied disability benefits by insurance company. Union filed grievance stating this was something employer was obligated to provide as per CA. Employer argued only responsible for paying premiums. The ruling was in favour of the employer and the employee was directed to sue the insurance company in court if it felt that the contract was being violated. This helped clarify the scope of an ancillary document and an employers reasonability regarding benefits. It showed the limitation of the scope of arbitration. Weber v. Ontario Hydro (1995) - Answers Unionized employee was on disability benefits. Employer hired investigator and based on information provided believed that employee was not disabled and suspended the worker. Weber filed a grievance stating there was no cause for this action and filed a suit for charter violation and applicable torts. The courts ruled that since this was a union matter, this would have to be dealt with through the grievance process outlined in the CA. This expanded the scope of arbitration requiring arbitrators to be knowledgeable in a wider range of legal issues Parry Sound (District) Social Services Admin. Board v. OPSEU Local 324 (2003) - Answers Counsellor that was on maternity leave was terminated within the probation period of employment which was allowed as per the CA. Union filed a grievance stated that worker was dismissed because of maternity leave. Arbitrator ruled that decisions must be aligned with human rights and other employment law related statutes. The supreme court upheld this decision. This expanded the scope of arbitrators role. Wm. Scott & Co. Ltd. v. Canadian Food and Allied Workers Union Local P-162 (1977) - Answers Employee went to news paper and said employer was inefficient. Employer terminated employee based on this and previous serious misconduct. Arbitrator and labor board upheld the decision stating