Amanda P. Cohen

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that required it to pay an employee his hourly wage for time spent commuting between an out-of-town hotel and a job site in a rental car provided by the employer.

The arbitrator found that the rental car constituted the 'Employer's equipment' under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's practical, common-sense interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's award dismissing a grievance over the respondent hospital's unilateral decision to change the designated home worksites of finance department employees following a merger.

The union argued the collective agreement's mobility clause prohibited this change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the collective agreement did not restrict the hospital's management right to transfer employees between worksites.

The court also ruled that an affidavit tendered by the union to supplement the record was inadmissible.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that assigned scaffolding tending work to the Labourers rather than the Carpenters.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably failed to apply the 'specialty scaffolding contractor' exception from its past jurisprudence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, as the Board had considered the past jurisprudence but concluded the exception did not apply on the facts of this case, given the nature of the work and the overwhelming area practice at the Bruce Power site.

The union applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's supplementary decision regarding the termination of employee benefits during the discipline process.

The arbitrator found that the employer's obligation to continue providing benefits to employees grieving their dismissal up to step three of the grievance procedure only lasted until the expiry of the collective agreement and the statutory freeze.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's decision was based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Roch Longueépée, largely successful in his appeal, sought partial indemnity costs from the University of Waterloo and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found Longueépée entitled to costs against the University, fixing them at $25,000.

The court also awarded costs against the HRTO, fixed at $7,500, because its arguments on the standard of review and request for a five-judge panel expanded the scope of the appeal, even though its position was not taken in bad faith.

The respondent applied to the University of Waterloo as a transfer student but did not meet the academic standards due to prior grades affected by undiagnosed disabilities.

The University's Admissions Committee rejected his application based solely on those unaccommodated grades.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the University met its duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court set aside the HRTO decision as unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO decision was unreasonable, as the University could not rely solely on unaccommodated grades to demonstrate reasonable accommodation, but varied the remedy to remit the matter back to the HRTO rather than the Admissions Committee.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reinstating a railway conductor who was terminated following a positive urine test for marijuana.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably excluded an expert report on marijuana impairment tendered eight days before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably exercised his discretion to exclude the late report to protect the integrity and fairness of the expedited arbitration process.

The Court also upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that a positive urine test, without corroborating evidence of impairment, did not establish a violation of the employer's drug policy.

The employer applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision which found that the employer's unilateral implementation of an electronic Grievance Management System (GMS) violated the collective agreement.

The collective agreement specified a process for filing grievances in writing to a designated officer.

The employer mandated that all grievances be filed through its proprietary GMS.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the GMS imposed mandatory conditions beyond those negotiated in the collective agreement, and thus was not a valid exercise of management rights.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that harmonized wages for a newly merged bargaining unit to the highest pre-existing rate.

The Board of Arbitration based its decision on a well-established pattern of post-merger harmonization in the hospital sector, without analyzing the hospital's arguments that its specific circumstances were unique.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons meeting the minimum standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility as required by Vavilov.

The matter was remitted to the Board.

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.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary order regarding the respondent father's access to their two children.

The father had been exercising access supervised by his parents, but was recently charged with criminal harassment and repeatedly breached court orders by discussing prohibited topics with the children.

The Children's Aid Society verified concerns about the children's exposure to conflict and the grandparents' inability to supervise the father.

The court granted the motion, suspending in-person access until supervised access facilities reopen, and ordering daily videocalls.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interlocutory evidentiary ruling regarding settlement privilege in one of 11 test cases concerning employee benefits fraud.

The parties had agreed that the ruling in this test case would apply to the other ten.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the agreement to apply the ruling across test cases did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the fragmentation of the administrative process.

The court emphasized that labour arbitration cases should generally be decided finally before judicial review is sought.

The respondent father brought a motion requesting a case conference on parenting issues, which had been previously adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court granted the motion, ordering a one-hour settlement conference restricted to parenting issues, to be held electronically by the Case Management Judge.

Specific directions were given for scheduling, scope, and electronic filing of briefs and offers to settle, with parties advised to consider the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on their proposed solutions.

The employer applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union grievance over Accidental Death benefits.

A firefighter died of lung cancer, an occupational disease presumed work-related under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The employer's insurance carrier denied the claim based on an illness/disease exclusion clause.

The arbitrator found the collective agreement obligated the employer to provide Accidental Death benefits, which at law includes occupational diseases, and that the insurance policy's exclusion could not diminish this bargained benefit.

The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov reasonableness standard and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the insurance policy was justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The Applicant, MPAC, sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted three employees a portion of an enhanced severance payment.

The employees were originally temporary employees who later became non-temporary.

MPAC argued the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable and inconsistent with a prior award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the Letter of Understanding was reasonable and consistent with the express wording of the agreement.

A provincially incorporated contractor providing construction services to federally regulated telecommunications companies sought to challenge a provincial labour relations board's certification of its construction technicians as a provincially regulated bargaining unit.

The contractor argued that its construction technicians performed work vital, essential, or integral to federal undertakings and should therefore be subject to federal labour jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations was not displaced.

The court found that the federal undertaking (Rogers) was not dependent on the contractor's construction technicians, and that the proper focus in derivative jurisdiction analysis is whether the federal undertaking is dependent on the particular employees in question, not whether the work performed is generally important to the federal undertaking.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that required it to provide long-term disability (LTD) benefits to employees working past age 65.

The collective agreement referenced a 1992 benefits booklet that did not explicitly terminate coverage at age 65, unlike the master insurance plan.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding it was a defensible interpretation of the collective agreement and consistent with arbitral jurisprudence regarding the elimination of mandatory retirement.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation by deciding not to pursue his grievances to arbitration following his layoff.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Board's use of a consultation process rather than a formal oral hearing did not violate the principles of procedural fairness.

The parties settled all outstanding issues in their family litigation except for costs.

The respondent sought costs, arguing success based on settlement offers and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant argued against awarding costs, or alternatively, for costs in her favour, citing the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court examined the jurisprudence on awarding costs after a global settlement, contrasting approaches that encourage summary determination of costs post-settlement with those that caution against it due to the difficulty in assessing "success" without judicial fact-finding.

Adopting the latter view, the court held that costs should not be awarded after a settlement unless there are compelling reasons, such as clear capitulation or unreasonable behaviour.

Upon review of the parties' offers and conduct, the court found no compelling circumstances to justify a costs award, noting that the settlement reflected divided success and compromise.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the proceeding, including the costs submissions.