5 total
Judicial review applications dismissed as moot after parties resolved underlying collective bargaining dispute.
The applicants sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether certain bargaining proposals were central or local issues under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.
Following the Board's decision, the parties reached an agreement that the disputed issues were central, resolving the underlying conflict.
The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matter because the Board's procedural decision did not set a dangerous precedent requiring appellate intervention.
Union removed from human rights proceeding after confirming it would not seek intervention status.
The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking clarification of the role of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) in the human rights application.
The applicant requested that OECTA either be declared a party and directed to provide information, or be removed as an addressee and participant.
OECTA confirmed it was not named as a respondent and had no intention of seeking intervention status.
The Tribunal ordered that OECTA receive no further notices of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 3.14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
Motion to withdraw professional misconduct allegations granted to allow referral to Fitness to Practise Committee.
The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member.
The College advised that medical information had been received, making a referral to the Fitness to Practise Committee more appropriate.
With the consent of the parties, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing.
Arbitrator's interpretation of Education Act regulation regarding teachers' lunch breaks upheld as not patently unreasonable.
The appellant teachers' association appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an arbitrator's awards regarding the scheduling of teachers' lunch breaks.
The arbitrator had ruled that under the collective agreement and Regulation 298 of the Education Act, teachers' 40-minute lunch breaks had to occur entirely within the scheduled interval for students' lunch breaks.
The Divisional Court reviewed the awards on a correctness standard and found them incorrect.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness because the arbitrator was interpreting an external statute intimately connected with his mandate.
The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable and reinstated the awards.
Arbitrator erred in interpreting Education Act regulation to require concurrent lunch breaks for teachers and pupils.
The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award regarding the scheduling of lunch breaks for teachers and pupils.
The arbitrator had found that the collective agreement, which incorporated Regulation 298 under the Education Act, required teachers and students to have a 40-minute lunch break at the same time.
The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's interpretation of outside legislation was correctness.
The Court found the arbitrator erred in reading 'at the same time' into the regulation, allowed the application, set aside the awards, and dismissed the grievance.
