Employment and Labour Law

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the claim based on an arbitration clause in a collective agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to consider whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The parties agreed the order was final.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant employee appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding her wrongful dismissal.

After her position became redundant, the parties agreed to ten weeks of working notice.

The employer subsequently terminated her early, alleging job abandonment when she took pre-scheduled vacation.

The trial judge found the employer breached the agreement and awarded the balance of the ten weeks' pay.

On appeal, the employee argued the breach rescinded the contract, entitling her to common law reasonable notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement was binding and the employer's breach constituted a repudiation, not a rescission, as the employee had already received half the benefit of the agreement.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its poultry service workers were not exempt from the Employment Standards Act under the farm worker exemption.

The Board had concluded that because the employees provided services to multiple farms, they were not employed 'on a farm' within the meaning of the exemption.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's interpretation was consistent with its past decisions and struck a reasonable balance between the purposes of the Act and the exemption.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent, an actor, sued her union (ACTRA) and its rights society in Small Claims Court, alleging they miscalculated and underpaid her royalties (Use Fees) for a movie performance.

The union brought a motion to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose from a collective agreement.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the interpretation, application, and administration of the collective agreement and the union's duty of fair representation.

Therefore, the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board or a labour arbitrator.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision determining he was not entitled to severance pay under s. 64 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board had concluded that the employer's payroll calculation for the $2.5 million threshold was restricted to its Ontario payroll, excluding its global payroll.

The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation unreasonable, holding that the calculation of payroll under s. 64 is not restricted to Ontario employment and must include global payroll.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award finding it breached the collective agreement by transferring work to a different geographic location.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted the scope of the 'Work of the Bargaining Unit' clause and failed to find that bargaining unit members were deprived of overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable based on its express wording and context.

The Court also found the arbitrator made the requisite factual finding regarding the deprivation of overtime, which was owed deference.

The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $10,000 to his former brokerage pursuant to a training repayment clause in his contract.

He argued the clause was an unenforceable penalty and that he received no training.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding training was provided and linked to a $2,000 monthly stipend.

The court held the $10,000 repayment was a genuine pre-estimate of damages, not an extravagant or unconscionable penalty, given the difficulty of quantifying training costs and the unusual monthly stipend provided.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision upholding sanctions for research misconduct, which prohibited him from conducting research as a principal investigator, applying for grants, and permanently closed his research laboratory.

The applicant argued the decision failed to consider mitigating factors, including his unblemished record and status as a world-renowned researcher.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable given the systemic and persistent nature of the misconduct over a ten-year period.

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 employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to certify a union for a bargaining unit of employees at a specific hotel location.

The employer argued the bargaining unit was inappropriate due to employee interchange across multiple locations and that the Board denied procedural fairness by excluding certain casual employees without an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's determination of the bargaining unit and employee status was reasonable and fell within its core expertise.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness, as the Board provided ample opportunity for written submissions.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment, and ordering them to pay $200,000 to the respondent.

The applicants argued the Vice-Chair's approach to credibility was unreasonable and procedurally unfair, particularly regarding the respondent's memory issues and the use of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Vice-Chair's credibility assessments were reasonable, did not improperly rely on oath-helping, and did not subject the applicant's evidence to unequal scrutiny.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting union certification for employees working on a federal nuclear waste remediation project.

The applicant argued that its labour relations were subject to federal jurisdiction because the project involved nuclear substances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was a large construction company performing a temporary contract and was not a federal undertaking itself, nor was it sufficiently integrated into the federal undertaking to trigger derivative federal jurisdiction.

A dissenting judge would have found derivative federal jurisdiction based on the federal regulatory regime governing nuclear substances.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision confirming a work assignment to a competing union.

The Board had found that the factor of economy and efficiency favoured the competing union for scaffolding tending work.

The Divisional Court dismissed preliminary objections that the application was moot or premature.

On the merits, the Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable, as it was supported by evidence in the record, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a national policy grievance.

The grievance alleged the employer's policy regarding the transfer of employees with permanent partial disabilities violated the collective agreement.

The union argued the arbitrator breached procedural fairness due to a five-year delay in rendering the decision and by relying on a provision of the collective agreement not raised by the parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delay did not cause significant prejudice and the arbitrator was entitled to consider the entire collective agreement.

The court also held the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the duty to accommodate was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his human rights complaints against his employer and union.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Divisional Court found the delay of 16 months to commence the application and almost another year to perfect it was excessive.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and presuming prejudice to the respondents, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her wrongful dismissal and human rights claims following her failure to return to work after maternity leave.

She argued the trial judge erred in finding that an 8:30 a.m. start time was a fundamental term of her employment contract, and that the employer's insistence on this time constituted constructive dismissal and family status discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the start time was an existing contractual term and that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination regarding her child care needs.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award dismissing its grievance against the employer airline.

The union claimed the employer breached a promise made during collective bargaining not to award travel passes with a higher priority to any other unionized group.

The arbitrator found the promise was narrow and did not extend to discretionary special passes awarded to pilots.

The Divisional Court held the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and that the arbitrator did not err in failing to address a sex discrimination argument that was not properly raised at the hearing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court trial judgment.

The original trial judge became ill and could not render a decision.

The Local Administrative Judge advised the parties that a new judge would issue a written judgment based on transcripts if all parties consented; otherwise, a motion for rehearing was required.

The respondent consented, but the appellant did not respond.

Despite the lack of consent or a motion, a deputy judge issued a decision in favour of the respondent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the appellant was denied the opportunity to be heard on the procedure for rehearing, and ordered a new trial before a different deputy judge.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment regarding pay and opportunities for advancement, later specifying age as the prohibited ground.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant acknowledged he had no evidence connecting the respondents' actions to his age, relying only on his own speculation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence to link the alleged unfair treatment to a Code ground.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents claimed the dismissal was due to an economic downturn and their belief that the applicant intended to leave for another job.

The Tribunal found that while non-discriminatory factors contributed to the decision to dismiss the applicant, the respondents failed to explain the timing of the dismissal, which occurred shortly after she disclosed her pregnancy.

The Tribunal concluded that pregnancy was a factor in the decision to dismiss her on that specific date.

The respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay $1,144 for lost wages, $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to implement human rights training and policies.