C.M. Mitchell

The applicant Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitration award granting a police officer indemnification for legal costs incurred defending a criminal charge.

The officer had been acquitted of criminal charges but pled guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for breaching a directive during the same incident.

The arbitrator found the officer was attempting to perform his duties in good faith when the events giving rise to the criminal charge occurred, despite the breach of the directive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable.

The Toronto Police Services Board applied for judicial review of an arbitration award that ordered compensation to a police officer whose promotion was deferred due to pending disciplinary charges that were later withdrawn.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, which balanced the employer's right to defer promotion with the officer's right to be made whole upon exoneration, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant judges' association sought judicial review of the Ontario government's decision to reject the pension recommendations of the Fourth Triennial Remuneration Commission.

The government had retained independent actuaries to cost the recommendations before rejecting them.

The Divisional Court held that the actuarial affidavits were admissible, as the government was entitled to seek expert advice to justify its decision.

The court found that the government was not required to return to the Commission before making its decision, and that its rejection of the recommendations met the constitutional standard of simple rationality.

The applicant, a former professional hockey goaltender, filed an application alleging the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding unpaid salary.

The respondent and intervenor raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant's employment was entirely in the United States and lacked a substantial connection to Ontario.

The fact that the union's head office is in Ontario did not confer jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The Carpenters union filed a work assignment complaint regarding the tending of carpenters at a construction project at Algoma Steel.

The general contractor had assigned the formwork to the Carpenters, with the Labourers tending.

The Carpenters argued they should tend themselves.

The Board considered employer practice, area practice, trade agreements, collective agreement obligations, economy and efficiency, and skill and safety.

Finding that tending is at the core of the Labourers' work jurisdiction and that safety and efficiency factors also favoured the Labourers, the Board upheld the assignment of the work to the Labourers.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer raised two preliminary issues: it sought to adduce evidence of alleged intimidation by union supporters to justify a representation vote, and it requested that the Board's notice to employees be reposted in Italian.

The Board declined to entertain the intimidation charges because the employer failed to provide timely particulars despite having knowledge of the allegations weeks before the hearing.

The Board also denied the request to repost the notice in Italian, finding that the employer lacked standing to raise procedural objections on behalf of the employees.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees were union members, the Board granted certification.