David A. Wright

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an arbitral award that required the employer to reimburse employees for the Ontario Health Premium under the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court correctly applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and relevant statutes was not patently unreasonable.

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 applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance regarding supplemental unemployment benefits.

The collective agreement provided top-up benefits during parental leave to adoptive parents but not to biological parents.

The union argued this violated the Human Rights Code and s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitration board's decision, finding that the provision responded to the special needs of adoptive parents and did not undermine the human dignity of biological parents, who are not a historically disadvantaged group.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant police association sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the employer's policy of transferring disabled uniformed officers into civilian bargaining unit positions to accommodate them.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision, finding it unreasonable and incorrect in law.

The Court held that the arbitrator failed to properly apply the individualized duty to accommodate, as he did not first consider whether the specific officers could be accommodated within their own bargaining unit without undue hardship before infringing on the civilian collective agreement rights.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of a grievor for innocent absenteeism.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining that the standard of review for whether the grievor suffered from a disability was reasonableness.

The court found the arbitrator reasonably concluded the grievor was not disabled, given the lack of medical evidence regarding his absences.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's finding of just cause for dismissal based on the grievor's attendance record.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent school board brought a motion to strike paragraphs of an affidavit filed by the applicant union in support of an application for judicial review of an arbitration award.

The arbitration award upheld the termination of a teacher.

The union argued the affidavit was necessary to show the arbitrator's findings of fact were unsupported by evidence.

The court held the motion was not premature and struck the paragraphs, finding there was no basis in law under the Keeprite test to admit the affidavit to augment the record, as there was ample evidence before the arbitrator to support the findings.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision finding that the union engaged in bad faith bargaining and imposing a remedy that affected the applicant's 'Me Too' collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness, and found that the OLRB had ample evidence and authority to fashion the remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a teacher found guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee had imposed a one-year suspension, with seven months running concurrently with a prior employer suspension, and the remaining five months suspended on conditions.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Committee's decision not to revoke the teacher's certificate was reasonable.

The Court dismissed the appeal but varied the wording of the penalty to clarify the five-month conditional suspension.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent teacher.

The applicant sought judicial review of a 1997 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints against his union under sections 74 and 76 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the four-and-a-half-year delay in bringing the application was undue and inadequately explained.

Furthermore, applying the patent unreasonableness standard of review, the court held that the Board's conclusion that the union had not acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant also failed to exhaust alternative remedies regarding the section 76 claim.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' judicial review application on the grounds of delay, the respondents sought costs.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, reducing the claimed amounts due to excessive hours, duplication of effort by multiple lawyers, and unexplained disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $18,000 plus disbursements for the respondent union and $14,000 plus disbursements for the respondent locals.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision but delayed perfecting the application for 13 months.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, noting the applicants offered no explanation for the delay, evaded explicit OLRB orders, and caused ongoing prejudice and uncertainty in a time-sensitive labour relations dispute.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of guilt (one count of insubordination and two counts of deceit) and a penalty of a twelve-month reduction in rank.

The charges arose from his investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent testimony at the accused's trial, as well as his failure to promptly answer questions ordered by a superior during a disciplinary investigation.

The Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding that the order to answer questions served a legitimate public purpose and did not violate the appellant's Charter rights.

However, the Commission set aside the two deceit convictions, concluding that the Hearing Officer failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of an intention to deceive regarding the officer's notes and court testimony.

The penalty was varied to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay for the single remaining count of insubordination.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of guilt (one count of insubordination and two counts of deceit) and the penalty of a twelve-month reduction in rank imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The charges arose from the officer's investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent failure to answer questions during an internal investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding that the order to answer questions served a legitimate public purpose and did not violate the officer's Charter rights.

However, the Commission set aside the two deceit convictions, concluding that the Hearing Officer failed to establish that the officer had an intention to deceive when making his notes or testifying in court.

The penalty was varied to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of guilt (one count of insubordination and two counts of deceit) and the penalty of a twelve-month reduction in rank.

The charges arose from his investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent testimony at the accused's trial, as well as his failure to promptly obey an order to provide a written report during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.

The Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding that the order to provide a statement for disciplinary purposes did not violate section 7 of the Charter and that the officer failed to comply in a timely manner even after related criminal proceedings concluded.

However, the Commission set aside both deceit convictions, finding the Hearing Officer failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of an intention to deceive regarding the officer's notes and court testimony.

Consequently, the penalty was varied from a one-year demotion to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay for the single remaining conviction of insubordination.

The applicant filed an application alleging an unlawful strike under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act and section 11 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties entered into minutes of settlement.

The Board directed that the application be adjourned sine die for a period of one year, after which it would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed.