Employment and Labour Law

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaints against his former employer and union.

The complaints arose after the applicant's employment was terminated following allegations of sexual harassment, which was subsequently resolved through Minutes of Settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decisions were reasonable.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed his defamation and related claims against his former employer and awarded him only $17,192.57 for wrongful dismissal, while ordering him to pay $35,000 in costs.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her defamation analysis, credibility findings, and acceptance of unpleaded defences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the substantive grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the employer's negative reference was substantially true.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the costs award, finding the trial judge erred by applying Rule 49.10(1) instead of Rule 49.10(2) for a defendant's offer to settle, and remitted the costs issue to the trial judge.

The employer sought an interim stay of Ontario Labour Relations Board orders that found certain franchisees to be dependent contractors, pending an application for judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the judicial review application was premature as the certification process was ongoing.

The court also held that the employer failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged harms were speculative, and the balance of convenience favoured the union due to the lengthy delays already experienced in the certification process.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision granting workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty paramedic.

The paramedic injured his bicep while assisting on-duty paramedics with a medical emergency at a music festival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that WSIAT reasonably applied the 'place, time and activity' criteria from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy to conclude the injury occurred in the course of employment.

The applicant Employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reclassified the Employment Relations Officer position to a higher level.

The Employer argued it was denied procedural fairness because the arbitrator failed to bifurcate the hearing, depriving it of the opportunity to lead evidence on the proper classification level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Employer should have known classification was in issue given the evidence and submissions presented at the hearing without objection.

The University of Ottawa brought a motion to set aside a decision finding that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review brought by the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa.

The Association sought to challenge the compensation paid to two non-unionized employees, arguing it violated wage restraints under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the application, holding that the compensation decision was essentially a private employment matter lacking the requisite public law dimension for judicial review.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that determined wages for its firefighters.

The arbitration panel had adopted a blended approach, relying on both local police wages and freely bargained firefighter wages in a comparable municipality.

The applicant argued this approach breached procedural fairness as it was not advanced by either party and relied on unsubmitted jurisprudence, and that the award was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the blended approach was not novel, the parties had the opportunity to make submissions on the relevant comparators, and the resulting award fell within a reasonable range of outcomes.

The appellants, representing a local union, appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence against former union employees who left to form a competing union.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that they breached their duty of loyalty by soliciting union stewards before resigning, and the damages awarded for that breach.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on liability, concluding that the former business manager was not a fiduciary and that the employees breached their duty of loyalty by competing while still employed.

However, the court allowed the cross-appeal on damages, reducing the awards to nominal damages of $500 per employee because the union failed to prove the breach caused actual financial loss.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found a grievor was a member of the full-time support staff bargaining unit and thus entitled to grieve a job competition.

The arbitrator had included the grievor's time as a temporary replacement worker in calculating whether he was regularly employed for more than 24 hours a week.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, noting that the arbitrator misunderstood the employer's position, misapplied past jurisprudence, and failed to recognize that temporary replacement employees are already part of the full-time bargaining unit.

The application for judicial review was granted and the award was quashed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application.

He alleged his former employer, the Ottawa Catholic School Board, failed to accommodate his return to work from a medical leave by improperly requiring him to attend an independent medical examination (IME).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the employer had a bona fide reason to question the treating physician's medical information and was justified in requesting an IME.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's refusal to admit post-application evidence regarding the accommodation process.

The applicant, a town councillor, brought an application for judicial review regarding a sexual harassment investigation.

The Integrity Commissioner subsequently concluded the complaint could not be determined, rendering the application moot.

The applicant amended his application to seek a declaration of mootness and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no unusual circumstances to award costs to the applicant for a moot proceeding, and awarded $15,000 in costs to the respondent Town.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing its application to review orders to pay unpaid wages.

The Board dismissed the application because it was filed out of time and the applicant failed to pay the ordered amounts in trust.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's refusal to grant an extension of time was reasonable, noting the urgency inherent in the payment of wages to employees.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no costs.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee.

The sole ground of appeal was that the trial judge failed to address the issue of mitigation of damages in his reasons, as the employee delayed starting new employment for several months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge's reasons were deficient on their face, the record clearly showed the employee acted reasonably in delaying his new employment based on legal advice regarding a potential injunction.

The court exercised its power under s. 134 of the Courts of Justice Act to find the employee had not failed to mitigate his damages.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying a grievance over the termination of retiree benefits following a plant closure.

The arbitrator found that the employer had the right to terminate the benefits because the collective agreement incorporated an insurance master contract containing a minimum participation provision, which was no longer met.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's decision was defensible in respect of the facts and the law.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding that it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee.

The central issue at trial was whether the employee resigned or was terminated following an investigation into missing vending machine funds.

The appeal court found that the trial judge failed to make necessary credibility findings regarding conflicting witness testimony and improperly relied on a modified Record of Employment from Service Canada as a 'tie-breaker' without proper evidentiary foundation.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim against the respondent for vicarious liability.

The appellant was assaulted by a snowblower operator contracted by the respondent.

The trial judge found that the operator was an independent contractor and that his intentional tortious actions were outside the scope of his contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual determinations regarding the independent contractor relationship and the lack of vicarious liability.

The applicant brought a motion for procedural relief in his application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

He sought to have his wife represent him or be added as a party, production of his opening submissions to the Board, production of 750 pages of payroll records, and to strike the respondents' facta.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding no legal basis for spousal representation, noting the Board record was complete, and holding that disagreement with a factum is not grounds to strike it.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent employer.

The university brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a faculty association.

The association sought to challenge the university's decision to increase the compensation of two senior administrators during a statutory wage freeze under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the compensation decision had a sufficient public element to be subject to judicial review, that the association had public interest standing, and that it was not plain and obvious that the Act barred the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, age, and association.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address issues of delay, whether the matter was appropriately dealt with in a grievance settlement (s. 45.1), and whether there was a reasonable prospect of success against the union representative.

The Tribunal dismissed the untimely allegations for delay, finding no good faith explanation for the delay and that the incidents did not form a series.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the remaining timely allegation under s. 45.1, finding the applicant had not agreed to the grievance settlement.

The application against the union representative was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant was directed to file a fresh application detailing the single remaining timely allegation.

The applicant, who had medical restrictions due to a neck injury and fibromyalgia, requested accommodation to work straight day shifts rather than rotating shifts.

The respondent employer refused, insisting she work rotating shifts like other employees, despite medical notes stating shift work aggravated her symptoms.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate her disability.

The Tribunal awarded $7,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, compensation for lost disability benefits, and ordered systemic remedies including human rights training and the development of an internal human rights policy.