Donald Kenneth Eady

Five organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of provincial legislation that required the removal of bicycle lanes in Toronto.

The underlying judgment found the legislation violated section 7 of the Charter.

The motion judge granted leave to all five proposed interveners, but limited the scope of their interventions to specific issues such as the positive/negative rights dichotomy, the interpretation of recent section 7 jurisprudence, and the application of equality and child-interest principles to the gross disproportionality analysis.

The interveners were restricted to 10-page factums and brief oral submissions.

The respondents moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by Ontario Place for All Inc. regarding the redevelopment of Ontario Place's West Island.

The respondents argued that the newly enacted Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 exempted the project from the Environmental Assessment Act, making the application moot or bound to fail.

The single judge of the Divisional Court declined to quash the application, finding that the issues raised significant public law concerns regarding governance and environmental protection that warranted consideration by a full panel of the Divisional Court.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by creating a new 'correctional supervisor' position and directly assigning former sergeants to it without posting the vacancies.

The employer argued the assignments were reclassifications of excluded managerial staff into the bargaining unit.

The arbitrator found that the correctional supervisor role was a 'new regular position in the bargaining unit' under the collective agreement, triggering the mandatory job posting requirement.

The arbitrator upheld the grievances, finding the employer could not circumvent collective agreement rights by reclassifying excluded employees into the bargaining unit without a posting.

AMAPCEO filed grievances asserting that Sergeants employed in correctional institutions should be covered by its collective agreement.

OPSEU sought to intervene, arguing that if the Sergeants are employees, they belong in OPSEU's correctional bargaining unit.

AMAPCEO objected, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already decided the representational issue in a prior certification application by PSAC, and that issue estoppel applied.

The Arbitrator found that the OLRB's prior decision was not a final determination of whether AMAPCEO had abandoned or relinquished its bargaining rights after 1995.

Therefore, issue estoppel did not apply, and OPSEU was granted the right to intervene.

The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO) filed a grievance against the Crown.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) sought intervener status.

AMAPCEO argued that the issue of representation had already been decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rendering OPSEU's intervention moot due to res judicata or issue estoppel.

OPSEU did not address this argument in its reply submissions, maintaining it had a right to intervene first.

The arbitrator declined to rule on the intervention without further submissions from OPSEU on the res judicata issue, directing a schedule for further written submissions to avoid adding uncertainty to the long-standing dispute.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing his complaints against his union and its president for alleged breaches of the duty of fair representation and intimidation.

The applicant alleged the union president told the college president to fire him after the applicant raised concerns about the union's workplace culture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the applicant suffered no actual prejudice in his employment relationship.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which dismissed his complaints for delay.

The applicant had filed complaints regarding his termination and a subsequent settlement agreement 18 months and over two years after the events, respectively.

The Divisional Court found that both tribunals reasonably exercised their discretion in determining that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, an employee of the Windsor Central Ambulance Communications Centre, was improperly scheduled for shifts, resulting in 160 hours of lost time.

Following an expedited hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a ruling without reasons, ordering the employer to compensate the grievor for the 160 hours of lost time and to schedule her for shifts pursuant to standard procedures going forward.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the appropriate remedy for a grievor who suffered harassment, discrimination, and a poisoned workplace based on sexual orientation, as well as the employer's failure to accommodate him.

The Board awarded $45,000 for the human rights breaches at the workplace, $35,000 for the failure to accommodate between 2003 and 2005, and $18,000 for the failure to accommodate between 2008 and 2010.

Claims for loss of spousal relationship, aggravated damages, punitive damages, special damages, and future wage loss were dismissed as too remote or inappropriate.

The Board also ordered the restoration of vacation credits and the inclusion of overtime and premium pay in the grievor's ongoing salary.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to properly compensate fixed-term employees for violations of the Provincial Overtime Protocol.

The parties disputed two issues: the entitlement to a day in lieu for employees who work on a holiday but are absent on their adjacent scheduled shift, and the meaning of 'exhausted' regarding the assignment of non-overtime resources before offering overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer cannot presume an absence adjacent to a holiday is without reasonable cause, and must request medical proof if abuse is suspected.

On the second issue, the Board found that the Employer must make a genuine effort to exhaust non-overtime resources before offering overtime, but this obligation is qualified by the phrase 'to the extent possible' and is not strictly mandatory.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had initially issued a brief decision upholding a union grievance, and later issued supplementary reasons at the union's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act to issue supplementary reasons without reconsidering the decision itself.

The Court found that the doctrine of functus officio applied, and the delivery of supplementary reasons raised a reasonable apprehension of result-driven, after-the-fact reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

At the opening of a grievance arbitration hearing, two preliminary issues were raised.

First, the grievor requested full party standing separate from the union, arguing the union was in an adversarial position due to her human rights complaint against it.

The Board denied this request, affirming the union's exclusive carriage rights over grievances.

Second, the union requested an adjournment of the arbitration pending the outcome of the grievor's human rights complaint against the union, arguing the factual overlap placed it in a conflict.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding the grievances against the employer could be adjudicated without a factual determination of the human rights complaint against the union.

The employer brought an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had upheld a union grievance, finding that fire restoration work at a Petro-Canada site was 'construction work' under the Labour Relations Act and governed by the provincial agreement, rather than the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement.

The employer argued the Board erred in its application of the doctrine of estoppel and lacked jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons and that its decision on the nature of the work and the application of estoppel was reasonable.

The employer sought particulars from the union regarding the alleged damages or losses claimed by over 200 grievors.

The grievances alleged that the addition of a 'z' to their email accounts and/or being added to the Tracking Protocol breached the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide the requested particulars by April 15, 2008.

The appellant union appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding two arbitral awards.

The arbitrators had dismissed grievances alleging that the employer was required to reimburse employees for the new Ontario Health Premium under the collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court correctly applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review to the arbitrators' interpretation of the collective agreements.

The Court further held that the arbitrators' conclusion—that the new premium was an add-on rather than a reversion to the pre-1990 individually paid premium system—was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two arbitration awards which held that the employer was not required to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of employees under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the arbitrators' interpretation of the collective agreement, which included reference to external legislation, was patent unreasonableness.

The court found that the arbitrators' interpretation of the unique language in the collective agreement was reasonable and dismissed the applications for judicial review.

The employer brought a motion requesting that the Grievance Settlement Board defer a grievance regarding the posting of a Coordinator of Pharmacy Services position to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The union had filed a grievance claiming the work belonged to its bargaining unit, while the employer asserted the position fell within a different union's bargaining unit and filed a jurisdictional dispute with the OLRB.

The Board granted the employer's motion to defer, finding that the OLRB was the appropriate forum to resolve a multi-party jurisdictional dispute and avoid the risk of conflicting arbitration decisions under different collective agreements.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer failed to implement the 2002 collective agreements and pay retroactive wage adjustments 'as soon as reasonably possible' after ratification.

The Employer argued the delay until October 10, 2002, was reasonable given the complexity of the system changes required for the new Unified bargaining unit and numerous special adjustments.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer dedicated significant resources to the implementation and that the time taken was reasonable under the circumstances.

The grievance was dismissed.

During the cross-examination of an employer witness, it became apparent that notes taken during meetings with employees as part of a disciplinary process had not been provided to the union.

The union requested a production order to ensure the employer produced all documents relating to testimony to be given by the employer's final three witnesses.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request and ordered the employer to produce all documents related to the e-mail investigation, including notes from meetings and documents in the possession of specific individuals.

The Union sought disclosure of the grievors' email accounts and lists of other employees disciplined as a result of the same workplace investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the requested email accounts and lists detailing the discipline of both OPSEU and non-OPSEU employees, subject to the condition that the disclosure be used solely for the purpose of the litigation.