4 total
Applications for judicial review of interlocutory labour arbitration decisions dismissed as premature.
The applicant union sought judicial review of two interlocutory arbitration decisions concerning the termination of an employee.
The respondent hospital argued the applications were premature because the arbitration process was not yet complete.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances justified judicial intervention before the arbitrator had issued a final decision on the merits.
The applications for judicial review were dismissed as premature.
Procedural directions issued for a virtual judicial review hearing including electronic document filing protocols.
The court held a case management conference by teleconference to schedule and set procedural directions for two applications for judicial review.
The hearing was scheduled to proceed by video conference using ZOOM technology.
The court issued detailed directions regarding the filing of electronic materials, factums, compendiums, and costs outlines via a password-protected drop box.
Arbitration award quashed as unreasonable for improperly calculating part-time hours using temporary full-time replacement work.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found a grievor was a member of the full-time support staff bargaining unit and thus entitled to grieve a job competition.
The arbitrator had included the grievor's time as a temporary replacement worker in calculating whether he was regularly employed for more than 24 hours a week.
The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, noting that the arbitrator misunderstood the employer's position, misapplied past jurisprudence, and failed to recognize that temporary replacement employees are already part of the full-time bargaining unit.
The application for judicial review was granted and the award was quashed.
Judicial review of interest arbitration award establishing new pay equity compliant wage grid dismissed.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that established a new job classification system and wage grid for the bargaining unit.
The union argued the panel's adoption of the employer's proposed wage grid violated s. 11(6) of the Canadian Human Rights Act by reducing male wages to achieve pay equity, and failed to apply the replication principle.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the panel's decision was reasonable.
The panel was tasked with creating a completely new classification system, not correcting an existing one, and reasonably concluded that s. 11(6) did not apply or was not breached.
The panel also reasonably applied the replication principle by considering objective market forces and economic realities.
