Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, marital status, and reprisal, over a year after her dismissal.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay and on the basis that the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees.

The Tribunal found the delay was incurred in good faith due to the applicant's reliance on her paralegal's erroneous advice, with no substantial prejudice to the respondents.

Under section 45.1, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the termination of employment, as the Board of Referees had already determined the applicant was dismissed solely for misconduct.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding failure to accommodate and a poisoned work environment to proceed, as they were not dealt with by the Board of Referees.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after she was not hired for four school board positions in 2011 and 2013.

The respondent requested that the 2011 allegations be dismissed for delay and that the entire application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2011 allegations, finding they were filed outside the one-year time limit without a good faith explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the 2013 allegations to proceed, concluding that the applicant's claims regarding her qualifications and age relative to the successful candidates could potentially establish a link to discrimination.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that 23 employees were eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan payments.

The arbitrator found that a 'temporary lay-off' under the SUB Plan was equivalent to the period employees retained recall rights under the collective agreement.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and SUB Plan was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitration award granting a police officer indemnification for legal costs incurred defending a criminal charge.

The officer had been acquitted of criminal charges but pled guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for breaching a directive during the same incident.

The arbitrator found the officer was attempting to perform his duties in good faith when the events giving rise to the criminal charge occurred, despite the breach of the directive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision resolving a work jurisdiction dispute over stone masonry work on a construction project.

The Board had ordered the subcontractor to assign the work to the respondent union based on collective bargaining agreement obligations.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board's consideration of the employer's identity, local area practices, and the general contractor's non-party status was rational and supported by evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The City of Ottawa applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that the City failed to provide uninterrupted eating periods to paramedics, contrary to the Employment Standards Act.

The City argued that the collective agreement provided a greater benefit by paying for all eating periods and using best efforts to keep them uninterrupted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's conclusion that the collective agreement did not provide a greater benefit than the statutory right to time off was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision calculating his pre-accident earnings based on his actual hourly wage of $20.00 rather than the $25.20 rate mandated by his union's collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied a patent unreasonableness standard of review, given the Tribunal's specialized expertise and the strong privative clause.

The Court held that the Tribunal's task under the pre-1997 Workers' Compensation Act was to determine actual earnings, not what ought to have been paid, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the collective agreement.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying accidental death and 'killed in the line of duty' benefits to the estate of a firefighter who died of renal cancer caused by occupational exposure to toxic substances.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's application of common law insurance principles to conclude the death was not accidental was incorrect and rendered the decision patently unreasonable.

The Court found that the firefighter's death from an occupational illness was unexpected and not caused solely by natural causes, thus qualifying as an accidental death and occurring in the line of duty.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the employer was ordered to pay the benefits.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee's refusal to follow a directive to go to a hospital emergency department.

The arbitrator found that under s. 33(1) of the Act, the employee had the right to make the initial choice of health professional, and that the 'obey now, grieve later' rule did not apply because grieving later would be meaningless.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the statute correct and the application of the 'obey now, grieve later' exception reasonable.

The applicant, a police officer facing disciplinary charges, sought judicial review of the hearing officer's refusal to recuse himself.

The applicant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of personal bias because the hearing officer had a close working relationship with a key prosecution witness and had permitted the applicant to be cross-examined about his pending charges while testifying in an unrelated disciplinary matter.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the hearing officer's actions in the unrelated matter compromised his ability to fairly assess the applicant's credibility and effectively deprived the applicant of his statutory right to silence under the Police Services Act.

The hearing officer's decision was quashed and the matter remitted for the appointment of a new hearing officer.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee who was terminated for absenteeism while incarcerated.

The arbitrator found that the employer acted unreasonably in terminating the employee rather than imposing a less onerous penalty, such as an unpaid suspension, under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and his conclusion that the employer must act reasonably were not patently unreasonable.

The respondent teacher was required by her collective agreement to retire at age 65, pursuant to The Public Schools Act.

She sought a declaration that this mandatory retirement provision contravened the prohibition against age discrimination in The Human Rights Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that human rights legislation is fundamental law that prevails over conflicting general legislation unless an express exception is created.

The Court found that the re-enactment of The Public Schools Act did not implicitly repeal the human rights protections, and the mandatory retirement provision was therefore invalid.

A police officer was dismissed by the disciplinary committee after being found guilty of shoplifting.

The appellant union filed a grievance, and the arbitrator substituted the dismissal with a thirteen-month suspension without pay, finding the original penalty too severe.

The respondent applied for a writ of evocation, which was denied by the Superior Court but granted by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction under the Labour Code by imposing a penalty not explicitly available to the disciplinary committee, as his decision did not constitute an abuse of power amounting to fraud or flagrant injustice.

The appellant union and employees sought an injunction to prevent a group lay-off, arguing the employer failed to provide the 16 weeks' notice required by section 60 of the Canada Labour Code.

The employer relied on section 30(c) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations, which deemed a lay-off not to be a termination if employees were recalled within six months.

The appellants argued this regulation was ultra vires as it breached the spirit of the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation was validly enacted under the specific authority granted to the Governor in Council by section 60.2(d) of the Code.

The appellant teachers filed grievances claiming their university-level teaching experience should be credited.

The respondent employer objected that the grievances were filed late under the collective agreement.

The arbitration tribunal dismissed the objection, finding the grievances related to 'errors of evaluation' and could be filed at any time.

The employer sought a writ of evocation, which was granted by the Superior Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded their jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that an arbitrator's decision on whether a grievance is filed late is not jurisdictional in nature and is not subject to judicial review.

The appellant, a police officer, sought judicial review to declare his resignation invalid, alleging it was obtained through lengthy interrogation and threats to prosecute.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a true and continuing intent to resign up to the time it was accepted by the Commissioner.

Consequently, there was no exercise of a statutory power of decision that would give rise to judicial review.

The appellant employer appealed a decision authorizing a writ of evocation against an arbitral award.

The arbitrator had dismissed a union grievance regarding educators' acquired rights to free meals, finding that a specific clause about meals excluded the general acquired rights clause.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower courts that the arbitrator's interpretation was manifestly unreasonable and could not be supported by the language of the collective agreement.

A civil servant was transferred to another detention centre and appealed the decision to the Commission de la fonction publique, alleging it was an unjustified disciplinary action.

The employer sought a writ of evocation, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction over administrative transfers.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commission has jurisdiction to hear evidence to determine whether a transfer is in fact a disguised disciplinary action, as an employer cannot deprive an employee of their right of appeal by labelling a disciplinary measure as an administrative transfer.

The respondent, a pilot boat captain, was transferred to a maintenance position by his employer.

The appellant union filed a grievance but refused to take it to arbitration based on a legal opinion that the transfer was not an arbitrable dismissal under the collective agreement.

The respondent sued the union for breaching its duty of fair representation.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the union's appeal, holding that a union has considerable discretion in deciding whether to arbitrate a grievance.

The Court found the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and was justified in relying on the reasoned opinion of its legal counsel.

The appellant bank closed a unionized branch and merged it with a non-unionized branch.

The Canada Labour Relations Board found this constituted a sale of a business and an unfair labour practice, ordering the bank to create a $144,000 trust fund and send a Board-authored letter to all employees.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Board's finding on the sale of a business, but set aside the trust fund and letter remedies, holding that they were punitive, lacked a rational connection to the unfair practice, and violated freedom of expression by compelling the bank to express opinions it did not hold.