Danielle Bisnar

The University of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to dismantle a protest encampment set up by students and others on Front Campus.

The protesters argued the encampment was a protected exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the University established a strong prima facie case of trespass and ejectment.

The court held that the protesters' appropriation of University property to the exclusion of others constituted irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the University, as the injunction only prohibited camping and erecting structures, while allowing the protesters to continue demonstrating elsewhere on campus.

In an alternative analysis, the court found that the Charter does not apply to the University's management of its property, and even if it did, the trespass notice was a justified limit under section 1.

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court, which had found the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The case concerned the interpretation of the Pay Equity Act, specifically whether the statutory proxy method, used to establish pay equity in female-dominated workplaces, must also be used to maintain it.

The Tribunal had ruled that the proxy method was not required for maintenance, leading to an internal comparison method.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable, as it ignored the Act's purpose, scheme, and wording, which necessitate an ongoing comparison to male (or deemed male) comparators to redress systemic gender discrimination.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to specify procedures for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

The Participating Nursing Homes (PNH) appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had directed the PNH and unions to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS) for maintaining pay equity, specifically to address changes in job duties and ensure ongoing compliance with the Pay Equity Act.

The PNH argued that the Act did not require them to tie their maintenance obligation to the proxy employer's historical valuation of male jobs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's authority to ensure compliance with the Act and the necessity of ongoing comparison, including through the proxy method, to maintain pay equity.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against four long-term care (LTC) facilities experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, alleging breaches of Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Directives regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control.

The ONA contended that the facilities failed to provide necessary PPE, particularly N95 masks, and implement appropriate administrative controls like isolating and cohorting residents and staff.

The facilities argued they complied with directives and that the ONA sought control over scarce resources.

The court found that the matter, though a labour dispute, required the court's inherent jurisdiction due to the inability to expedite arbitral processes.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm to nurses and residents.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, prioritizing health and safety.

The court ordered the LTC facilities to provide nurses with access to N95 respirators and other appropriate PPE based on point-of-care assessment and to implement administrative controls as per CMOH Directives.

The Ontario Nurses' Association appealed a Divisional Court decision that had set aside an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement between the ONA and Toronto East General Hospital.

The dispute arose from the Hospital's closure of beds in a unit, which reduced available work hours for regular part-time nurses.

The Hospital spread the reduction across all part-time nurses without regard to seniority.

The arbitrator found this constituted a lay-off triggering the collective agreement's lay-off provisions, which require seniority-based reductions.

The Divisional Court reversed, finding the arbitrator's decision internally inconsistent and contrary to the collective agreement's terms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's interpretation reasonable and consistent with the collective agreement's language and purpose.