3 total
Court declined to award costs where motion success was divided.
Following resolution of a motion by consent permitting the applicant to file a fresh notice of application in litigation arising from termination of employment by a municipal employer, the court addressed competing claims for costs.
The applicant sought $5,000 in costs while the respondent sought $10,000.
The court noted that success on the motion was divided and that the proposed fresh notice of application had originally sought relief well beyond the narrow issue capable of adjudication under the Municipal Act.
Considering the discretionary nature of costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that fairness favoured making no costs order.
Judicial review of OLRB decision dismissed; employer not bound by unions' agreement on overlapping employee lists.
The applicant unions sought judicial review of an interim decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding card-based certification.
The employer had provided lists of employees for two prospective bargaining units with 24 overlapping names.
The unions agreed between themselves on how to allocate the overlapping workers and argued the employer was bound by this agreement.
The Board ruled the employer was not a party to the agreement and ordered the employer to provide an unqualified list.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with its jurisprudence.
Judicial review of arbitrator's decision reversing employee suspension dismissed; factual findings not patently unreasonable.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reversing a two-week suspension imposed on an employee for fighting.
The arbitrator found that the employee had not engaged in a fight, preferring the employee's viva voce evidence over written statements filed by the employer.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's factual findings were not patently unreasonable and that the arbitrator correctly held the employer to the specific grounds assigned for discipline.
