Christopher G. Riggs

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that section 54 of the Labour Relations Act applies to all collective agreements in Ontario.

The arbitrator had not yet decided the ultimate question of whether mandatory retirement prior to amendments to the Human Rights Code was unlawful.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, emphasizing that courts should not entertain applications prior to the completion of proceedings to avoid fragmented proceedings and unnecessary delay.

The arbitrator must rule on all issues before judicial review is appropriate.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission referring a discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicants argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the postulancy process is not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code and the subject matter of the complaint had ceased to exist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the preliminary jurisdictional issue of whether the relationship constitutes a 'service' is best decided in the first instance by the Tribunal, and that the amended complaint was properly before the Tribunal.

The Ministry of Labour appealed the acquittal of an employer charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker suffered a serious hand injury on a cold-rolling steel mill.

The employer argued it complied with the guarding requirement in section 25 of the Industrial Establishments Regulations by using a push bar and an operating control, and that the worker's deliberate failure to follow procedures caused the accident.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the push bar and operating control did not constitute a guard or 'other device' under the Regulation.

The Court further held that employee misconduct is not a defence to the strict liability offence of failing to guard a machine, and the employer failed to establish a due diligence defence.

A conviction was entered.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an urgent application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a cease and desist order regarding an unlawful strike by the Amalgamated Transit Union that shut down public transit.

The Board Chair held a teleconference hearing at 5:30 a.m. without the Union's participation, granting the order.

Later that day, a Vice-Chair reconsidered the decision, limiting each side's presentation time, and upheld the order.

The Union applied for judicial review, arguing a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion to abridge its procedures and that the urgent circumstances justified the expedited process and limited presentation time.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the salary level for laboratory technicians.

The hospital argued the arbitration board failed to consider the statutory requirements of s. 9(1.1) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the replication principle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board explicitly stated it had considered the relevant factors and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Board of Arbitration decision finding it had discriminated against a unionized security officer.

The employer had stopped offering the employee temporary management shifts after she attended a union convention.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement's anti-discrimination clause was logical and rational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent, a deputy chief of police, sought a declaration that the fixed-term provision in his employment contract was void after the police services board declined to renew it.

The application judge found the provision was a colourable device to bypass statutory termination procedures and declared it void.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment, finding no evidence of an ulterior motive.

The Court held that the expiry of a fixed-term contract does not constitute a dismissal under the Police Services Act, and that a three-year term does not undermine the independence required of a deputy chief.

The appellant employer appealed a decision granting the respondent former employee the full benefit of share units under a Mid-Term Incentive Plan following a change of control.

The appellant argued the entitlement should be calculated pro rata to active employment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the change of control triggered actual and immediate vesting of the share units under the plan, rendering the pro-rata provision inapplicable.

The Union brought a motion to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court, who had dismissed the Union's motion to strike an affidavit filed by the City of Hamilton on an application for judicial review.

The underlying judicial review challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's certification of the Union.

The Divisional Court panel allowed the motion in part, holding that while affidavit evidence regarding notice was admissible to establish a denial of natural justice, the remaining paragraphs containing evidence not before the Board must be struck out in accordance with the Keeprite principle.

The appellant union appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding two arbitral awards.

The arbitrators had dismissed grievances alleging that the employer was required to reimburse employees for the new Ontario Health Premium under the collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court correctly applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review to the arbitrators' interpretation of the collective agreements.

The Court further held that the arbitrators' conclusion—that the new premium was an add-on rather than a reversion to the pre-1990 individually paid premium system—was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an arbitral award that required the employer to reimburse employees for the Ontario Health Premium under the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court correctly applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and relevant statutes was not patently unreasonable.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario convened a hearing to finalize the quantum of damages owed to the complainant following a 30-year legal process involving findings of racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment at the respondent's plant.

The parties had previously agreed to a quantum of $352,722.82, but the self-represented complainant subsequently refused to accept the funds, seeking instead to have the appellate court reconsider the entire case de novo.

The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to set aside an appellate ruling and ordered the respondent to pay the agreed-upon amount, concluding that this payment fully satisfied the respondent's remedial obligations and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant mother sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal, which upheld the school board's placement of her son, an exceptional student with Down's Syndrome, in a special education class for half the day.

The mother preferred full-time placement in a regular class with one-to-one support.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness and found the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and in the child's best interests.

The Court held that total integration would work to the student's disadvantage and dismissed the application.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an arbitration board's ruling.

The arbitration board had concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the collective agreement to award aggravated or punitive damages for an unjust dismissal grievance.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was correctness and that the board erred.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the pragmatic and functional approach dictated a standard of patent unreasonableness due to strong privative clauses and the board's expertise in interpreting collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal concluded the board's decision was not patently unreasonable and restored its ruling.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

As a preliminary matter, the Divisional Court ruled that a new assessment prepared following the tribunal hearing could not be considered on the application for judicial review.

Both parties agreed to proceed with the application without the new assessment.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two arbitration awards which held that the employer was not required to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of employees under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the arbitrators' interpretation of the collective agreement, which included reference to external legislation, was patent unreasonableness.

The court found that the arbitrators' interpretation of the unique language in the collective agreement was reasonable and dismissed the applications for judicial review.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring it to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees under the collective bargaining agreement.

The Divisional Court determined that the appropriate standard of review for the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was patent unreasonableness.

Finding that the arbitrator's conclusion was not patently unreasonable, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order vacating a previous interim relief order that had directed the employer to refrain from proceeding with its Personnel Security Checks Initiative.

The Board ordered that the Personnel Screening Checks Policy and Operational Guidelines could be implemented by the employer as of January 1, 2006.

The Board remained seized of issues regarding specific phases of the guidelines and redeployment processes, and directed the parties to meet to review the operation of the policy by September 30, 2006.

The parties appeared before the Court of Appeal to determine issues of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest following an appeal regarding a wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued against pre-judgment interest due to the respondent's delay in issuing the claim and the fact that the appeal judgment awarded no more than the original termination offer.

The court rejected these arguments, noting the appellant had use of the funds, and awarded pre-judgment interest.

The court also declined to vary the agreed post-judgment interest rate of 4 percent, finding the delay in obtaining Employment Insurance repayment information was avoidable.

Costs of the attendance were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant filed a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination by his former employer.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to refer the complaint to a board of inquiry under s. 36 of the Human Rights Code because the employer had made an adequate settlement offer, which the appellant refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Commission was entitled to consider the settlement offer, which was not privileged against the Commission, and that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.