Christopher D. Pigott

Sobeys Capital Inc. applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying Local 633 as a craft bargaining unit for 15 meat department workers at a Toronto supermarket.

Sobeys argued the decision was unreasonable, contrary to precedent, and created an absurd result by leaving the remaining 92 percent of employees non-unionized.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's decisions under both s. 9(3) and s. 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act were reasonable, given the union's long history of representing supermarket meat department employees and the lack of evidence that certification would cause labour relations problems.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated two employees terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The arbitrator had ruled that an employer can never discipline an employee for refusing to consent to medical treatment.

The Divisional Court found this conclusion unreasonable, as it failed to balance the hospital's duty to protect patients against the employees' privacy interests in the context of a pandemic.

However, the court upheld the arbitrator's ultimate decision to reinstate the employees, noting that terminating them after only two weeks of unpaid leave was premature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a single judge's order dismissing its application for judicial review for delay.

The Divisional Court panel first granted an extension of time to hear the late-filed motion.

On the merits, the panel held that the standard of review is deferential and the motion judge did not err in finding that an 11-month delay, combined with an insufficient explanation and prejudice to the respondent, warranted dismissal.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the calculation of relief letter carrier complements under a collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that absences of relief letter carriers temporarily filling long-term vacancies must be included in the bar chart review process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and prior binding awards was reasonable and made labour relations sense.

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 employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision to substitute a 30-day suspension for the dismissal of a flight attendant who had unlatched refreshment trolleys during a flight.

The employer argued the arbitrator's reasoning was illogical and failed to address safety concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, justified, and transparent under the Vavilov standard, as the arbitrator reasonably concluded the misconduct was not as grave as the employer believed and lacked malice.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a grievance arbitration award that substituted a thirty-day suspension for the termination of an employee.

The Divisional Court stayed the application as premature, noting that the arbitrator had remitted the matter back to the parties and remained seized of the issue of whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy.

The court held that judicial review should wait until the final disposition of the remedy to avoid overlapping work and inconsistent decisions.

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 applicant employee was terminated for theft of time.

His union grieved the termination, but the arbitrator upheld the discharge.

The union did not seek judicial review.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review on his own behalf.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the general rule of union exclusivity applied.

Although the collective agreement gave the employee the right to pursue arbitration independently, he did not exercise that right, and therefore could not claim standing under the exceptional circumstances doctrine.