Aaron Hart

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court, which had found the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The case concerned the interpretation of the Pay Equity Act, specifically whether the statutory proxy method, used to establish pay equity in female-dominated workplaces, must also be used to maintain it.

The Tribunal had ruled that the proxy method was not required for maintenance, leading to an internal comparison method.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable, as it ignored the Act's purpose, scheme, and wording, which necessitate an ongoing comparison to male (or deemed male) comparators to redress systemic gender discrimination.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to specify procedures for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

The Participating Nursing Homes (PNH) appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had directed the PNH and unions to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS) for maintaining pay equity, specifically to address changes in job duties and ensure ongoing compliance with the Pay Equity Act.

The PNH argued that the Act did not require them to tie their maintenance obligation to the proxy employer's historical valuation of male jobs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's authority to ensure compliance with the Act and the necessity of ongoing comparison, including through the proxy method, to maintain pay equity.

The applicant failed to contact court staff to arrange a case management teleconference by the court-ordered deadline.

As a result, the application was dismissed as abandoned, without costs.

The self-represented applicant sought to have her application heard on an urgent basis but refused to attend a mandatory case management teleconference, insisting on a panel of three judges.

Due to her failure to attend the scheduled teleconference, the court stayed the application pending further order, with a warning that it may be dismissed if she does not arrange a fresh teleconference by a specified date.

The applicant union sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding the employer's refusal to disclose a commercial Master Services Agreement (MSA) with a third party.

The union alleged the refusal violated the employer's duty to not interfere with union representation and the duty to bargain in good faith under the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions to deny full disclosure, find the initial bad faith bargaining complaint premature, and later order only partial disclosure based on specific bargaining concessions, were all reasonable and consistent with established labour jurisprudence.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming application to be heard by video conference.

The court provided instructions on the use of ZOOM, electronic document filing via a password-protected dropbox, formatting of factums with hyperlinks, and the preparation of electronic compendiums.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an employment standards claim against his former employer.

The dispute centered on the number of hours the applicant worked in October 2017.

The Board found he worked 34.5 hours, while the applicant claimed he worked up to 93 hours.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's factual finding was reasonable based on the evidence, which included a paystub and OMVIC registration documents.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's proceeding, the respondent sought costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the hours and billable rates claimed to be reasonable.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $7,788.37.

The Employer applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the Union as the bargaining agent for heavy equipment operators.

The Employer argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board found its pleadings deficient regarding the status of 18 employees and refused to allow amendments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the Board applied established pleading standards for construction industry status disputes.

The Court also held the Board's refusal to allow amendments was reasonable due to the prejudice the delay would cause the Union.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her former employer, a housing cooperative, engaged in reprisals against her for enforcing her rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employer's actions, including extending her probation and terminating her employment, were motivated by her health and safety complaints.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Tribunal's findings of fact and legal analysis were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing its objection to the certification of a union.

The employer argued the union discriminated on the basis of age in its constitution and other collective agreements, violating s. 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's interpretation of s. 15 was reasonable and that procedural fairness was not breached when the Board dismissed the objection without an oral hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting union certification for employees working on a federal nuclear waste remediation project.

The applicant argued that its labour relations were subject to federal jurisdiction because the project involved nuclear substances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was a large construction company performing a temporary contract and was not a federal undertaking itself, nor was it sufficiently integrated into the federal undertaking to trigger derivative federal jurisdiction.

A dissenting judge would have found derivative federal jurisdiction based on the federal regulatory regime governing nuclear substances.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming a compliance order that required the applicant to pay overtime to employees at its centralized sweet corn processing facility.

The Board had found that the facility was not a 'farm' and the work was not 'directly related to primary production' under the farm worker exemption in Regulation 285/01.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was unreasonable because it disregarded uncontradicted expert and operational evidence, adopted an arbitrary interpretation that created absurd results, and failed to properly balance the protective purpose of the exemption.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the court declared that the farm worker exemption applied to the employees.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an application for certification.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought reconsideration by the Board under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the conflicting Board decisions raised important policy issues regarding the interpretation of its home statute, and that reconsideration offered an adequate alternative remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as premature.

The moving party sought a motion to review a decision dismissing her motion for an order exempting her from the requirement to sign an undertaking not to disseminate audio recordings of court proceedings.

She also sought permission to video record the motion to review hearing itself.

The court held that parties are not entitled to obtain and disseminate audio or video recordings of proceedings on their own terms.

The open courts principle does not automatically override statutory restrictions on recording.

The court dismissed the motion to review and awarded costs to the respondent London District Catholic School Board.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that allowed an employee to participate in a representation vote on a displacement application.

The applicant argued the employee should have been excluded under the April Waterproofing doctrine because he was not assigned to work by the incumbent union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably interpreted 'in the bargaining unit' based on the work being done and reasonably applied its current, more nuanced approach to the April Waterproofing doctrine.

The applicant union sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding an application for certification in the construction industry.

The union argued that the bargaining unit should be limited to licensed sheet metal workers and registered apprentices, and that the Board breached procedural fairness by altering the proposed bargaining unit description without submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the union failed to seek reconsideration on that issue.

The Court also held that the Board's decision to include unlicensed workers in the bargaining unit was reasonable, as it appropriately focused on the work performed on the application date rather than licensing status under collateral legislation.

The Divisional Court issued an endorsement to correct an accidental slip in its previous reasons for judgment dismissing the applicant's application.

The court amended paragraph 34 of the reasons pursuant to Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to accurately reflect that the agreement as to costs was between the applicant and the University of Toronto, not the union.

The applicant was ordered to pay agreed costs of $8,000 to the University.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The union had withdrawn five of his six grievances regarding his termination and settled the final one.

The Board dismissed the complaint following a consultation process, finding the union acted reasonably and honestly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Board's process was procedurally fair and its decision was reasonable, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision certifying a bargaining unit for construction labourers.

The applicants argued the OLRB erred by excluding post-application date evidence regarding the composition of the bargaining unit and by finding that the two individuals working on the application date were their employees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB reasonably applied the statutory framework and its established policy of determining bargaining rights based on the date of application, and reasonably concluded the individuals were employees of the applicants.