Employment and Labour Law

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.

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.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application concerns an arbitrator's decision regarding a grievance filed after a union member was sexually assaulted at work.

The court scheduled the motion to proceed before a single judge of the Divisional Court by ZOOM videoconference in October 2020 and set out the timetable for serving and filing materials.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule an appeal from a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal case.

The court directed that the appeal be heard by a three-judge panel via Zoom and set out a timetable and procedural requirements for the filing of electronic materials, factums, and compendiums.

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 appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for a cash incentive award, unpaid bonus, and vacation pay following his termination.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation of the employment contract and severance documents.

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to the cash incentive because he was not actively employed on the vesting date, and his claims for bonus and vacation pay were barred by the full and final release he executed upon accepting his severance package.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award between a food services contractor and a union, arguing it was denied natural justice because it was not given notice of the hearing.

The arbitrator had found the contractor violated the collective agreement by contracting out patient food services to the hospital.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the hospital's interest in the arbitration was commercial and indirect, rather than a direct legal interest that would entitle it to third-party standing and notice.

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it breached its duty to accommodate a disabled employee.

The employee, who could only work part-time, had been permitted to remain in the full-time bargaining unit for years, receiving better benefits.

The City eventually transferred him to the part-time unit.

The arbitrator held this transfer was discriminatory absent a change in circumstances or undue hardship.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable and inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's ruling in Orillia Hospital, which established that requiring work in exchange for compensation is a bona fide occupational requirement.

The arbitration award was quashed and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of a nurse who misappropriated narcotics from the respondent hospital.

The arbitrator found that the nurse was addicted to narcotics and would not have engaged in the misconduct 'but for' her addiction, yet dismissed the grievance.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the arbitrator unreasonably applied an outdated legal test for prima facie discrimination rather than the established three-part test confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The award was set aside and the grievance remitted to a new arbitrator.

The appellant employer appealed the dismissal of its motions for summary judgment in three wrongful dismissal actions.

The employer argued that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement prior to the commencement of the actions.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge erred in law by failing to analyze whether the parties had agreed on the essential terms of the settlement.

The Court concluded that the parties had reached an agreement on all essential terms, including the payment of legal fees, and intended to resolve the matters.

The appeal was allowed, summary judgment was granted, and the actions were dismissed.

The applicant employee was terminated for theft of time.

His union grieved the termination, but the arbitrator upheld the discharge.

The union did not seek judicial review.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review on his own behalf.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the general rule of union exclusivity applied.

Although the collective agreement gave the employee the right to pursue arbitration independently, he did not exercise that right, and therefore could not claim standing under the exceptional circumstances doctrine.

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 applicant brought a motion to set aside an order denying its request to file an affidavit as part of its record in an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The applicant argued that the affidavit was necessary to show the Board's findings of fact were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law by the motion judge, who was bound by established precedent that restricts the admission of new affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The applicants, graduate students and teaching assistants at York University, sought judicial review of a University Tribunal decision disciplining them for misconduct during a legal strike.

The Tribunal had assumed jurisdiction under the Student Code.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the essential character of the dispute was labour-related and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the Labour Relations Act and the Back to Class Act.

The Court also found exceptional circumstances to hear the judicial review despite the applicants not exhausting internal appeals, and noted the Tribunal's process was procedurally unfair.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision regarding salary protection for downwardly reclassified employees.

The arbitrator found the provision unambiguously entitled these employees to economic increases and revisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation, treatment of estoppel, and refusal to use extrinsic evidence to create ambiguity were reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that the arbitrator breached natural justice by citing authorities not provided by the parties, as no novel issue was raised.

The applicant brought a motion under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The motion judge had dismissed the applicant's request to file four affidavits in support of its application for judicial review of a labour arbitration decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law.

The court agreed that the proposed affidavits, which detailed oral submissions made before the arbitrator, were an impermissible attempt to supplement the record and did not fall within the narrow exceptions for admitting affidavit evidence on judicial review.

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, a seasonal general labourer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and creed.

He claimed he was denied hours, raises, benefits, training, and promotions, and that his employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons after he reported a workplace injury.

He also alleged his supervisor made racist comments.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, including terminating the applicant due to an expired work permit.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's testimony regarding the alleged discriminatory comments to be inconsistent and not credible.

The applicant filed two applications: one alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment and hiring by the provincial government, and another alleging breach of a prior settlement agreement's confidentiality clause.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed both applications.

The breach of settlement claim was dismissed because internal disclosure of the agreement to rely on its release clause did not violate confidentiality.

The discrimination claims arising before the settlement date were dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code as they were barred by the broad release in the prior settlement.

The remaining claims regarding subsequent job applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided only bald assertions without evidence linking the failure to obtain jobs to prohibited grounds or reprisal.

The applicant, an employee at a homeless shelter, filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after being disciplined for his handling of a client.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not link the alleged unfair treatment to any prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, nor did it allege reprisal for exercising Code rights.

Finding that it lacked jurisdiction over allegations of general workplace unfairness, the Tribunal dismissed the application.