Christopher G. Riggs

The applicant, a child with severe autism, sought judicial review of a Special Education Tribunal decision affirming his placement in a Primary Autism Pilot Project rather than an Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding the requested IBI program was medical treatment rather than education, and in failing to apply the Charter and Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence that the pilot project was appropriate for the applicant's needs.

The applicant, a nursing student with cerebral palsy, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent college's Student Appeals Committee upholding her failing grade in a clinical course.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Committee failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, refused to hear her expert witness on discrimination and accommodation, and refused to allow a court reporter to record the proceedings.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Committee's failure to provide reasons for its decision and its refusal to hear the expert witness constituted a denial of procedural fairness.

The decision was set aside and remitted to a new panel.

The Toronto Transit Commission sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that found a two-year lockout for employees failing safety training to be unreasonable.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the board acted unreasonably by implying a duty on the employer to act reasonably without identifying any express language in the collective agreement limiting management rights, nor finding bad faith or disciplinary action.

The award was quashed and remitted to the board to consider whether the lockout intruded on seniority or working conditions provisions, or constituted a disciplinary penalty.

Seneca College brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order dismissing its application to dismiss the union's judicial review for undue delay.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge did not err in exercising his discretion to allow the judicial review to proceed despite a 19-month delay, as there was no actual prejudice to the college.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant pension board appealed a Divisional Court decision that a deceased member's former spouse was entitled to a portion of his pre-retirement death benefits pursuant to a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that pension benefits, including pre-retirement death benefits, may be transferred under a domestic contract without the aid of s. 48(13) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The court also determined that the 50 per cent limit on transfers under s. 51(2) applied to the pre-1987 benefits, and that the calculation date for the benefits was the date of the member's death.

The appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal was allowed in part.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer her complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the Commission was bound by a prior finding of the Board of Referees under the Employment Insurance Act, noting the issues were entirely different.

The appellant Union appealed a Divisional Court decision quashing an arbitrator's award that allowed the Union to initiate individual teacher workload complaints before a Workload Resolution Arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator's decision was patently unreasonable because the collective agreement contained clear words limiting access to the arbitrator solely to individual teachers.

The agreement's specific provisions regarding the grievance process demonstrated that the parties did not intend for the Union to initiate complaints at the arbitration stage.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the dismissal of an employee with schizophrenia.

The employee had a history of failing to take her medication, leading to disruptive behaviour.

The arbitrator found that the final incident jeopardized workplace safety and that the employer could not accommodate the employee without undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was not patently unreasonable and correctly applied the Meiorin test for accommodation.

Following an appeal involving a long-term municipal employee who lost his employment due to amalgamation, the Court of Appeal issued a brief endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal and the proceedings below at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondent, a middle manager for the former City of North York, was terminated following municipal amalgamation and unsuccessful job competitions.

The trial judge awarded 116 weeks' pay in lieu of notice, including an extension for bad faith conduct under Wallace, finding the employer's competition process was 'sloppy'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the employer's conduct did not amount to bad faith or unfair dealing justifying a Wallace extension.

The court reduced the notice period to the 80 weeks originally offered by the employer.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking reinstatement on the basis that he was an office holder was dismissed.

The union brought an application for interim relief to prohibit the employer from implementing a new employee security checks process, which included police and credit checks, pending the resolution of grievances on the merits.

The employer argued the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order.

The Board rejected the employer's jurisdictional argument, finding it had authority based on established jurisprudence.

Applying the test for interim relief, the Board found the union had established an arguable case that the policy violated the collective agreement, privacy legislation, and the Charter.

The Board concluded the balance of convenience favoured the union, as the potential harm to employees' privacy interests and the consequences of refusing consent or failing a check could not be adequately remedied retroactively.

The application for interim relief was granted.

The employer college hired a probationary teacher on the condition that she enrol in a graduate program.

When she failed to do so within ten months, the employer dismissed her.

The union grieved the dismissal, and the Arbitration Board reinstated the employee, finding the condition invalid because it was individually negotiated outside the collective agreement and conflicted with it.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, holding that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the Board correctly concluded that the collective bargaining regime precludes individual bargaining of terms or conditions of employment whose non-fulfilment could lead to dismissal.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Human Rights Commission refusing to deal with his age discrimination complaint on the basis that it was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The applicant argued that the Commission breached the rules of natural justice by providing insufficient reasons and that its decision was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's screening function attracts a standard of patent unreasonableness, the reasons provided were adequate for an administrative screening decision, and the decision to dismiss the complaint for untimeliness was supported by the evidence.

The applicant college sought judicial review to quash an award made by a Workload Resolution Arbitrator, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction under the Collective Agreement to hear workload complaints initiated by the respondent union rather than individual teachers.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that Article 11 of the Collective Agreement clearly limited access to the arbitrator solely to individual teachers.

The court held that the arbitrator's decision to read in a right for the union to pursue arbitration was patently unreasonable and exceeded his jurisdiction.

The application for judicial review was granted and the arbitrator's award was quashed.

The respondent employee was discharged by the appellant employer following an altercation.

A labour arbitrator upheld the discharge.

The employee also filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

A Board of Inquiry found the employer liable for discrimination and ordered remedies including damages and reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the employer's appeal.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the human rights complaint under the Weber framework, nor did issue estoppel apply.

However, the Court set aside the reinstatement order, finding it inappropriate given the 11-year delay, the employee's subsequent comparable employment, and the Board's failure to give adequate weight to the arbitrator's decision.

Retired police officers, through their representative corporation, appealed the dismissal of a Rule 22 motion claiming an interest in approximately $6 million in excess pension funds arising after legislative amendments moved supplementary early retirement benefits into the basic OMERS plan.

The appeal advanced theories based on deferred wages, trust, fiduciary obligations, unjust enrichment, partial wind-up, and statutory restrictions on surplus use.

The Court of Appeal substantially adopted the motion judge’s reasoning and held that the supplementary agreement did not create a separate pension plan and that retirees under a defined benefit plan had no inherent entitlement to the excess funds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

In this human rights appeal, the court clarified the scope of the leave endorsement and held that the appeal did not extend to a review of the finding of systemic discrimination.

The only issue properly before the court was the effect, if any, of an arbitration award on the jurisdiction and power of the Board of Inquiry to grant reinstatement, in light of the jurisprudence such as Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The matter was adjourned to permit the parties to file fresh factums addressing that sole jurisdictional question.

No costs were awarded for the attendance.

The appellant Board of Education discharged a teacher after he wrote abusive and threatening letters to the Board's administration.

The teacher grieved the dismissal, and a majority of the arbitration board ordered his conditional reinstatement, finding his conduct was temporary due to stress.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, but the Court of Appeal restored it.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that the arbitration board's decision was patently unreasonable.

The evidence overwhelmingly showed the teacher's conduct was not temporary and that he was unfit to return to the classroom.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitration award quashed.

The respondents' child, who has cerebral palsy, was placed in a special education class by a Tribunal contrary to the parents' wishes.

The Court of Appeal held this violated section 15 of the Charter and read in a presumption of integration into the Education Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding the constitutional validity of the Act without the required statutory notice.

Furthermore, the Tribunal's decision did not violate section 15 of the Charter, as it was based on the child's best interests and actual needs, and did not impose a burden or disadvantage.

The respondent hospital sought disclosure of documents and information relating to a human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission objected, arguing the request was premature and that the information was privileged.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Stinchcombe doctrine of disclosure applies to human rights proceedings given the serious nature of the allegations.

The Board found that while documents prepared for conciliation or litigation are privileged, statements gathered during the investigation stage are not.

The Board quashed the hospital's subpoena as premature but ordered the Commission to disclose complainant statements and relevant witness statements.