Dolores Barbini

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 sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a non-contracting out provision for a newly created Customer Service Agent position.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because both parties had agreed in written submissions that the issue of contracting out would be left for a future arbitrator, yet the arbitrator decided the issue anyway.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by deciding an issue without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions.

The application for judicial review was allowed in part, and the relevant portions of the award were set aside and remitted to the arbitrator.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) that adjourned an appeal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature.

The court held that the OLRB's decision was an interlocutory adjournment and did not constitute a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of an interim administrative decision.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons, providing a medical note indicating upcoming surgeries and a consultation with a pain specialist.

The respondent opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application due to the applicant's failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request, finding that the medical information raised a serious issue regarding the applicant's ability to proceed, but declined to adjourn the matter indefinitely.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide updated medical information by a specified date indicating his availability for a hearing.

The respondent Hospital brought preliminary requests to dismiss the Application against it, dismiss certain allegations for delay, and schedule a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding her accommodation and the transfer of her seniority between bargaining units.

The Tribunal denied the Hospital's requests, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the recognition of seniority and the complex issue of accommodation required a full hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also noted that historical events were included only for context, making a dismissal for delay unnecessary.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's last-minute request for an adjournment was denied.

When the applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a teacher married to another teacher employed by the same school board, alleged discrimination on the basis of marital and family status because she was denied family coverage under the employer's benefit plan.

The plan prohibited the internal coordination of benefits, meaning a person could not be insured as both an employee and a dependent.

The Tribunal found that the prohibition did not constitute discrimination on a prohibited ground, as any disadvantage arose from the terms of spousal employment rather than marital or family status.

The application was dismissed.

The successful applicant in a labour arbitration judicial review sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $30,000.

The Divisional Court found this amount excessive for a matter that was not overly complex.

The court fixed costs at $7,500, which it deemed to be within the accepted range for such proceedings.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that denied a grievor's claim for a pension after 31 years of continuous employment.

The majority of the arbitration board had found that the grievor waived his right to pension benefits and that the doctrine of laches barred the grievance.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitration board's decision was unreasonable.

The collective agreement and pension plan documents mandated enrollment for full-time employees and did not permit waiver.

Consequently, the employer bore the obligation to ensure enrollment, and the equitable defence of laches could not apply where waiver was legally impermissible.

The application was granted, the award quashed, and the matter remitted to the arbitration panel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an outstanding grievance arising from the same factual circumstances and seeking human rights damages.

The Tribunal found that deferring the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, avoiding the duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a student who was suspended for fighting and bullying, brought an application alleging racial discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary matters.

The Tribunal ordered the school board to produce redacted disciplinary records for students at the applicant's high school who were disciplined for fighting or bullying during the relevant school year.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant's expert to testify regarding the disproportionate application of discipline to racialized students.

The Tribunal removed the individual school administrators as personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue against them since the school board accepted vicarious liability.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that new allegations regarding the failure to provide homework were beyond the scope of the original complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application over two years after the underlying events.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis of delay and section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that section 53(8) did not bar the application because a prior complaint had never been formally 'filed' with the Commission.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application because it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, noting a lack of due diligence in pursuing the claim despite communications from the Commission.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and family status after receiving a trespass notice preventing him from entering his son's school premises.

The applicant requested to expedite the proceedings.

Noting that both parties expressed willingness to mediate, the Tribunal scheduled a mediation date and deferred the request to expedite until after mediation, if necessary.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for its decision not to advance his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The applicant was discharged for allegedly smoking marijuana on duty, which he denied.

Following an initial consultation, the Board determined it could not finally dispose of the matter based solely on the information provided.

The Board directed that the consultation continue, requiring the union to call evidence subject to cross-examination to establish the basis for its decision not to arbitrate the grievance.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union for failing to file a grievance after she was injured at work and no suitable accommodated position was found.

At the consultation hearing, the union agreed to file a grievance regarding the employer's duty to accommodate, and the employer agreed not to raise timeliness objections.

The Board ordered the union to file the grievance immediately and adjourned the complaint for up to one year, declining the applicant's request to hire her own representative at this stage.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union after it declined to advance his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The applicant was terminated for allegedly consuming and possessing marijuana at work, based on an undercover investigator's report.

The union investigated the allegations, interviewed witnesses, and considered the applicant's bald denial, which lacked any exculpatory explanation due to pending criminal charges.

The union concluded the grievance had poor prospects of success and posed a risk of leading to mandatory drug testing.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the union's investigation was thorough and its decision not to arbitrate was reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The Law Society of Upper Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the Law Society to post and distribute a notice to affected employees by a certain date.

The Law Society failed to post the notice in a timely manner and failed to send it to former employees.

The Tribunal found the notice ineffectual and ordered the Law Society to post, distribute, and mail a new notice by October 15, 1996.

The applicant union sought an order determining the effective date for the combination of several bargaining units at various retail stores of the responding party employer.

The Board had previously ordered the combination but reserved on the effective date.

The employer argued the combination should be effective only when every unit had entered into a collective agreement, while the union sought an immediate combination.

The Board found no reason to delay the combination, noting that deferring would not eliminate implementation complexities and that concluding terms for the units would be reached against the framework of an eventual combined unit.

The Board ordered the bargaining units combined effective immediately.

The applicant union sought to combine several bargaining units at various retail stores in Ontario under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to combine units that had already given notice to bargain and invoked statutory negotiation processes, and alternatively, that doing so would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to combine the units regardless of the stage of collective bargaining.

The Board found that combining the units would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation, and directed the combination of the units, while reserving on the effective date to allow the parties to address transitional issues.

The applicants applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

Although the initial termination petition had sufficient signatures, the union filed counter-petitions (statements of reaffirmation) signed by several of the same employees.

The Board found the counter-petitions were voluntary and not employer-supported.

Because the voluntary counter-petitions reduced the number of valid termination signatures below the required 45% threshold, the Board dismissed the termination application.