C.G. Riggs

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to award aggravated and punitive damages to a grievor who was unjustly dismissed.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review to the jurisdictional question.

Applying the exclusive jurisdiction model from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the Court held that the claim for damages arose inferentially from the collective agreement and was within the board's exclusive jurisdiction.

The application was granted, the board's decision on jurisdiction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the board to determine the damages claim.

The appellant employer appealed a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry, which found it liable for racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

The employer argued the Board erred by not dismissing the complaints due to institutional delay, by refusing to apply issue estoppel to a prior labour arbitration decision, and by imposing direct employer liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the test for delay, properly rejected issue estoppel due to a lack of mutuality of parties, and reasonably inferred a causal connection between the poisoned environment and the employee's termination.

The complainant, a psychiatric nurse of Burmese descent, alleged that her employer, North York General Hospital, and her unit administrator discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour.

She claimed that constructive criticisms of her nursing care and subsequent disciplinary actions, including suspensions and termination, constituted racial harassment and reprisals for filing a human rights complaint.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaints, finding that the unit administrator's actions were motivated by genuine concerns for patient care and the complainant's insubordination, not racial prejudice.

The evidence demonstrated that the complainant refused to accept constructive criticism and exhibited a distorted perception of reality, leading to the deterioration of her employment relationship.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting on-the-job political canvassing by union members on company property during non-working hours.

The canvassing was in support of the Canadian Labour Congress and the New Democratic Party during a federal by-election.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that while the activity may be lawful, it is too remotely connected to the dominant purpose of the Act—collective bargaining—to be protected as a statutory right.

The Board found that the communications were aimed at employees as voters rather than as employees, and thus the employer's prohibition did not violate the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing technical paramedical employees and to expand the bargaining unit to include previously unrepresented professional paramedical employees.

The Board held that in a displacement application, a union cannot sweep in a group of previously unrepresented employees solely on the strength of its membership support in the incumbent's unit.

The Board found the incumbent's bargaining unit to be the appropriate unit, ordered a representation vote for that unit, and dismissed the application as it related to the unrepresented professional employees due to insufficient membership support.