Christopher G. Riggs

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 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 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.

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 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 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.