Benjamin Paul Toupin Piper

The union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance over the assignment of weekend cleanup work.

The employer had begun assigning students to perform weekend cleanup at straight time instead of offering it to regular employees as overtime, despite a Letter of Understanding (LOU) regulating overtime distribution.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable because it failed to address the central issue of the LOU's explicit language governing the distribution of weekend overtime to volunteers by seniority.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly challenged the constitutionality of Bill 7, which allows hospitals to transition alternate level of care patients to long-term care homes without their consent.

The applicants argued the legislation violates sections 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by forcing patients to move or pay a daily fee.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no violation of Charter rights.

The court concluded that the legislation is a constitutional measure designed to manage scarce hospital resources.

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

The plaintiffs, including two lawyers and a union, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing defamatory and harassing posts on a Facebook profile.

The defendant, a former union member, requested an adjournment to retain counsel and transfer the action to Manitoba, which the court denied.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding defamation and harassment, irreparable harm to the professional reputations of the plaintiffs, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The motion was granted with no costs ordered.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration decision that excluded temporary teachers (those without Ontario College of Teachers membership) from the occasional teachers' bargaining unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator did not breach procedural fairness, as the parties were invited to make submissions on the determinative issue.

The Court also held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014, requiring occasional teachers to be on the board's roster to be included in the bargaining unit, was reasonable.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of verbal and psychological abuse, failing to comply with ethical standards, and engaging in disgraceful and unprofessional conduct.

The uncontested facts established that the member repeatedly used a racial slur in front of students and made disparaging remarks about their intelligence and clothing.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The member was reprimanded, her teaching certificate was suspended for two months, and she was ordered to complete a course on appropriate communication and cultural sensitivity.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw all allegations of incompetence against the Member.

The allegations arose from three unsatisfactory performance appraisals that were subsequently annulled after the Member grieved his dismissal.

In exchange for the withdrawal, the Member entered into an Undertaking and Acknowledgement requiring him to complete an additional qualification course and undergo two performance appraisals within 24 months.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that proceeding with a hearing had no reasonable prospect of success and that the Undertaking adequately protected the public interest.

The applicant, a dismissed teacher, brought human rights complaints against his former employer and various other parties, which were summarily dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

He sought judicial review.

On a motion, a single judge ordered that a lawyer, Lise Leduc, be joined as a respondent but refused to order her recusal as counsel.

Both the applicant and Leduc brought motions to a panel of the Divisional Court to review the single judge's decisions.

The panel held that the single judge lacked jurisdiction to join Leduc as a respondent and quashed that order.

The panel dismissed the applicant's motion to recuse Leduc, finding no conflict of interest, and dismissed his requests for damages and reinstatement for lack of jurisdiction.

The self-represented applicant brought three procedural motions within his application for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

First, he sought to strike the respondents' materials for late filing; the court dismissed this, allowing the materials nunc pro tunc as the delay was minimal and caused no prejudice.

Second, he argued the Tribunal's record of proceedings was incomplete; the court agreed and ordered the Tribunal to allow the applicant to select correspondence for a supplementary record, awarding him $150 in costs.

Third, he sought to remove respondent counsel for an alleged conflict of interest; the court dismissed this as the Tribunal had already decided the issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The union, acting as the applicant's bargaining agent, sought intervenor status, which was granted on consent.

The union and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of four outstanding grievances related to the same facts and human rights issues.

Over the applicant's objections regarding delay, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting that it is generally appropriate to defer when a parallel grievance process is underway to avoid concurrent proceedings and contradictory decisions.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the provincial statutory bar in s. 44 of Newfoundland and Labrador’s workers’ compensation statute applied to bar the dependants’ maritime negligence action.

The Court concluded the provincial provision was constitutionally applicable and operative, rejecting both interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy.

The Court held the provincial no-fault compensation regime and the federal maritime cause of action could operate together without conflict.