Employment and Labour Law

The applicant, a secondary school teacher and Curriculum Leader, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his colleagues and the school board based on his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The applicant claimed he was subjected to a coordinated attack and a poisoned work environment.

After hearing the applicant's evidence in chief, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while there was a serious workplace dispute, the applicant failed to establish a credible link between the adverse treatment he experienced and his identity.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations were based on unreliable perceptions, assumptions, and speculations.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after the respondent university failed to interview him for a position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant may have been treated unfairly or felt suspicious due to past disputes, he failed to point to any evidence linking the decision not to interview him to his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a union grievance process.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a mediation date be scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts were part of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The applicant's union indicated the grievances were held in abeyance pending the applicant's return to work.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting there was no indication when the applicant would return to work or if the grievances would proceed to arbitration, and directed the respondents to file a Response.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had initially issued a brief decision upholding a union grievance, and later issued supplementary reasons at the union's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act to issue supplementary reasons without reconsidering the decision itself.

The Court found that the doctrine of functus officio applied, and the delivery of supplementary reasons raised a reasonable apprehension of result-driven, after-the-fact reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they repudiated the respondent's consulting contract without cause by way of anticipatory breach.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking 24 months of payments instead of 12.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the respondent's responsibilities were implicitly taken away without warning, constituting anticipatory breach.

The court also agreed there was no duty to mitigate as the consulting agreement was part of a package deal for the sale of the respondent's business.

The cross-appeal was dismissed because the contract clearly limited payments to 12 months in the event of termination without cause.

The appellant sued her employer of 28 years for wrongful and/or constructive dismissal.

Shortly after commencing the lawsuit, she applied for and received long-term disability benefits, indicating on the application that she was still employed.

The employer successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the appellant was estopped from claiming dismissal due to her disability application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that whether the appellant's actions amounted to a representation, whether the employer could rely on it, and whether there was detrimental reliance were triable issues.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation regarding the value of shares he would acquire upon employment.

The defendants sought to stay the action, arguing the dispute should be referred to arbitration pursuant to a shareholders' agreement and the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The application judge refused the stay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the dispute was not 'commercial' in nature and did not arise out of a 'transaction' as defined in the shareholders' agreement, thus falling outside the scope of the arbitration clause.

The appellant appealed a judgment, arguing the motion judge erred by assessing the respondent's mitigation efforts without cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons and concluding that mitigation efforts could be fairly assessed on the record.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $6,000.

The appellant, a probationary managerial employee, brought an action against her employer involving whistle-blowing allegations.

The employer brought a motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction, arguing the appellant should have used the grievance procedure under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the employer failed to advise the appellant of the grievance procedure, and by the time jurisdiction was raised, the grievance period had expired.

The Court held that the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction and that denying the appellant access to the court would leave her without a remedy.

The appeal was allowed and the employer's motion was dismissed.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that granted part-time nurses overtime pay for regularly scheduled Saturday shifts.

The arbitrator had found that Saturday work fell outside the normal work week defined in the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation was rationally supported by the language of the agreement.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award and a decision of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission.

The arbitrator had dismissed a grievance regarding the inclusion of cadet service in the calculation of 'continuous active service' for a seniority premium, finding he lacked jurisdiction to define the term as the parties had not yet done so.

The Commission subsequently refused to appoint a conciliation officer, finding no notice to bargain had been given for the current collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review for the arbitration award was patent unreasonableness and for the Commission's decision was reasonableness.

The Court found neither decision met the threshold for intervention and dismissed both applications for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the departure of a 'key man' to the applicant company constituted a sale of a business under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the Board's specialized expertise and the strong privative clauses in the Act.

The Court found there was evidence to support the Board's factual findings and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent unions.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction granted by Lederman J., which included the re-instatement of the plaintiff's employment based on a finding of a serious issue of oppression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision and noting that the re-instatement of employment, while rare, was within the judge's discretion under the oppression remedy.

The court also held that the failure to provide an undertaking did not automatically preclude the injunction and that no principle of broad importance was involved to justify granting leave.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision forbidding the implementation of a finger scan system for checking employees in and out of the workplace.

The employer argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and the decision was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the employer had conceded jurisdiction before the arbitrator and that the arbitrator's balancing of the employer's interests against the employees' privacy interests was not patently unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the jurisdiction of the Superior Court over a claim involving a Band Council and declaratory relief.

During the appeal, the parties agreed to reconcile most of their difficulties and issue a new Statement of Claim focusing on unjust dismissal.

The Divisional Court declined to decide the remaining issue of whether a Band Council member can sue the Band Council, leaving it to be raised against the new pleading if necessary.

No costs were awarded.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his action for wrongful dismissal and overtime pay, as well as the subsequent costs award.

The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant was a probationary employee who could be terminated without notice under the employment contract.

The court also considered whether leave was required to appeal the costs award under the Courts of Justice Act.

Although leave was required, the court granted it but ultimately dismissed the costs appeal, finding the trial judge's award was within the statutory limit and properly exercised.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding discipline against a grievor who refused to clean a workplace washroom.

The grievor, who had Hepatitis C, suffered a nosebleed and disposed of bloody tissues in the washroom.

When directed to clean and sanitize the area, he refused, claiming discrimination based on his disability.

The arbitrator found the employer's request reasonable and held that a single instance did not constitute a course of vexatious conduct under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the arbitrator's conclusion that the incident was a matter of industrial discipline rather than discrimination or harassment.

The applicant, a First Nations Constable with the Anishinabek Police Service (APS), was terminated by the Chief of Police following allegations of sexual misconduct.

The termination occurred without a hearing, contrary to the APS Code of Conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that although the APS was created by a tripartite agreement and not by statute, it is a public body fulfilling a governmental function and is therefore subject to judicial review.

The court found that the applicant was a public office holder entitled to procedural fairness, which he was denied.

The decision to terminate was quashed.

The appellant, a police officer, was found guilty of four allegations of misconduct relating to the misappropriation of approximately $4,000.

The Hearing Officer ordered his dismissal forthwith, a decision upheld by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued against the penalty.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the court found that the Commission properly considered all relevant factors and that dismissal was within the range of available penalties for fraudulent activity by a police officer.

The appeal was dismissed.