7 total
Appeal allowed; adjudicator's prior representation of a party did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The respondents, former employees and officers of a union local, brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging unfair labour practices.
They requested the vice-chair recuse himself because he had previously acted for one of the respondents in an employment dispute.
The vice-chair declined and dismissed the application for serving no labour relations purpose.
The Divisional Court quashed the decisions, finding a conflict of interest.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court erred by applying the test for a lawyer's conflict of interest rather than the test for reasonable apprehension of bias by an adjudicator.
The Court found the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted and reinstated the vice-chair's decisions.
Successful parties awarded partial indemnity costs after defeating Rule 21 motion.
Following dismissal of a Rule 21 motion brought by one defendant seeking to bar claims relating to expulsion from union membership, the court addressed costs.
The plaintiffs had successfully resisted the motion, which sought to preclude the action for failure to exhaust internal union appeals or for lack of jurisdiction.
Applying the discretionary costs framework under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered proportionality, complexity, and the results achieved.
Relying on appellate guidance regarding fair and reasonable costs awards, the court held that the successful plaintiffs were entitled to costs.
Partial indemnity costs of $4,990 were ordered payable by the moving defendant only.
Ministry ordered to produce documents related to the decision to surplus the grievors' positions.
The union brought a grievance alleging that the Ministry violated the collective agreement by acting in an arbitrary, discriminatory, and bad faith manner when it decided to surplus the grievors.
During the proceedings, a dispute arose regarding disclosure.
Following a conference call, the Vice-Chair ordered the Ministry to produce notes, emails, and other documentation pertaining to the posting of certain positions, the elimination of the grievors' positions, and discussions between specific management personnel regarding the decision.
Employer ordered to produce documents subject to confidentiality restrictions pending further submissions.
The Union requested document production in a grievance arbitration.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents subject to a confidentiality restriction, and directed the Union to provide particulars.
The Board noted it would hear further submissions on confidentiality terms at the next hearing date.
Appeal dismissed; claims for breach of duty of fair representation by police associations fall to labour arbitrators.
The appellant police officer sued the respondent police association for breach of its duty of fair representation.
The motion judge struck the claim for want of jurisdiction, finding that such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was bound by its previous decision in Renaud v. LaSalle (Town of) Police Assn., which established that an arbitrator appointed under the Police Services Act has exclusive jurisdiction over these disputes.
OLRB decisions quashed due to Vice-Chair's failure to recuse himself after previously representing an applicant.
The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing their application.
They argued that the Vice-Chair should have recused himself because he had previously acted as a lawyer for one of the applicants in a related matter.
The Divisional Court found that the Vice-Chair misunderstood the test for conflict of interest and the appearance of bias, as set out in Macdonald Estate v. Martin.
The court quashed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.
Marriage contract support waiver set aside; husband ordered to pay $175,000 monthly interim spousal support.
The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, and other relief, seeking to set aside the spousal support waiver in the parties' marriage contract.
The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the respondent husband's net worth grew to approximately $500 million.
The court found the marriage contract's support waiver to be unconscionable and severed it from the agreement.
The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $175,000 per month, retroactive to the date of separation, and to maintain life insurance and health benefits for the applicant.
The claim for interim child support was dismissed.
