Dean Ardron

The applicant unions sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondent employers from enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies pending the outcome of labour arbitrations.

The court dismissed the Sinai application on the basis that the labour arbitration process provided an adequate alternative remedy, precluding the exercise of the court's residual jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the TTC application on the merits of the injunction test, finding that the loss of employment or income did not constitute irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the employer's obligation to protect public health and workplace safety.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) decisions reinstating two Transit Safety Officers who were discharged for misconduct.

The GSB had found that the employer breached a sunset clause by considering expired disciplinary records when deciding to terminate the employees.

Relying on the Molson's case, the GSB concluded it was bound to void the discipline entirely and reinstate the employees with full compensation.

The Divisional Court granted the applications for judicial review, holding that the GSB erred by failing to consider all relevant circumstances before applying Molson's and by failing to consider its statutory discretion to substitute a penalty under s. 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act.

The decisions were quashed and remitted to the GSB.

The applicants' motion for leave to appeal an order denying an interlocutory injunction was previously dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the applicants unnecessarily ran up costs by pursuing the motion despite being warned the appeal route was to the Court of Appeal.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the jurisdictional issue was not straightforward.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis, reflecting the complexity of the jurisdictional issue and the need for the respondent to address the merits of the leave motion.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an order denying their application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from implementing random drug and alcohol testing pending a grievance arbitration.

The respondent argued the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because the order was final, not interlocutory.

The court agreed, finding that because the injunction was sought by way of an application, the dismissal of that application finally determined the proceeding.

Consequently, the order was final and any appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Toronto Transit Commission from implementing random drug and alcohol testing for safety-sensitive employees pending the outcome of a policy grievance arbitration.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any privacy breaches or wrongful dismissals could be compensated with damages.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the significant public interest in transit safety and evidence of a workplace drug and alcohol problem.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiff employer brought an action seeking disgorgement of board allowance payments allegedly mistakenly paid to the defendant, a former employee, under a collective agreement.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose under the collective agreement and that an arbitrator had the power to award damages against a former employee.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted statutory holiday pay to employees on inactive status receiving WSIB benefits.

The employer argued the arbitrator failed to address its central argument under s. 24(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which would result in zero holiday pay for these employees.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, as it lacked justification and intelligibility regarding how the entitlement to payment was determined without addressing the statutory formula.

The application was allowed and the issue remitted to a new arbitrator.