Christopher G. Riggs

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the matter was clearly moot and involved no issue that would warrant the court exercising its discretion to hear it anyway.

No costs were ordered.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which dismissed his complaint that his termination was tainted by anti-union animus.

The applicant argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard of proof and made several evidentiary errors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, applied the correct legal test, and was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision that prohibited assigning teachers more than three courses per semester without agreement.

The school board argued that teachers had an implied duty to act reasonably when refusing consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the provision granted an absolute right to withhold consent was reasonable and well within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant sought judicial review of two arbitration awards dealing with return to work grievances following a strike by academic staff.

The arbitration board had concluded that the collective agreement's workload provisions did not apply and developed its own principles to award additional compensation.

The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it ignored the language of the Return to Work Protocol and the collective agreement, which did not confer jurisdiction to create new compensation criteria.

The application for judicial review was granted, the awards were quashed, and the grievances were remitted to a different arbitration board.

The applicant, a graduate student, sought judicial review of a university disciplinary decision that resulted in a formal reprimand for harassment under the Code of Student Conduct.

He argued that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not permitted legal representation at the initial hearing before the Vice-Provost, that the decision was unreasonable, and that it violated his Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was fair given the context and minor sanctions, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not apply, the decision was reasonable, and the Charter did not apply to the university's internal disciplinary process.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, arguing that the Board's mid-hearing decision to require will-say statements and limit examination-in-chief to thirty minutes was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no prospect of real unfairness on the record and noting that judicial review of administrative action during a pending hearing should generally be avoided until the hearing is completed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent university sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent university fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted that the application served no public benefit, was based on voluminous materials, and was presented in a laborious manner that added significantly to the university's costs.

The applicant, a university instructor, sought judicial review of an investigator's report and the university's subsequent determination dismissing her workplace harassment and discrimination complaint against a colleague.

The parties had previously agreed to bypass the collective agreement's formal inquiry panel process in favour of a private investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the customized, private process lacked the requisite public character to be amenable to judicial review, and also dismissed a motion to set aside a single judge's order striking the applicant's affidavit for containing inadmissible evidence.

The appellant, Hydro One Inc., appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Financial Services Tribunal order for a partial wind-up of its pension plan under s. 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.

Following a corporate merger, the employment of 73 Management Compensation Plan (MCP) employees was terminated.

The Tribunal used a 'subset analysis' to determine that a 'significant number' of plan members had been terminated, comparing the number of terminated MCP employees to the total number of active MCP plan members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 69(1)(d) permits a subset analysis in appropriate circumstances and that the Tribunal's application of this analysis was reasonable given that the merger intentionally targeted senior employees nearing retirement.

The applicant, a former municipal employee, sought judicial review and an order of mandamus reinstating him to his position after being dismissed without cause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the employer-employee relationship was effectively ended and beyond repair.

Applying Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, the court held that the dismissal of a public employee under a contract of employment is governed by contract law, not public law, and that the applicant's remedies lie in an action for wrongful dismissal.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator had found that the grievor committed serious misconduct but revoked all discipline, including a transfer, because an initial reprimand was given without union representation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that while the arbitrator reasonably found a breach of the representation clause, automatically revoking the transfer was unreasonable given the irrevocable breakdown of the working relationship.

The court quashed the revocation of the transfer but upheld the revocation of the suspension.

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 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.