Douglas John Wray

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding them bound by collective agreements as successor employers under s. 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the principals engaged in a scheme to establish a non-union company and that a sale of the business occurred.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding the principal's role and the lack of prejudice from delay were supported by the record.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The arbitrator found that the respondent nursing home breached the collective agreement by hiring non-unionized agency workers but declined to order any remedy beyond a declaration, citing the home's severe staffing shortages and regulatory obligations.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The court noted that while the situation was problematic, the arbitrator reasonably concluded that other remedies would exacerbate the staffing crisis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award which held that, although the employer had the authority to change the pension plan under the collective agreement, it was estopped from freezing the Defined Benefits component until the expiry of the agreement.

The arbitrator found the employer made a clear representation in 1999 that employees choosing the Defined Benefits plan would remain in it until retirement, and the union detrimentally relied on this by losing the opportunity to negotiate protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's application of the doctrine of estoppel and his factual findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions: a default decision finding it violated a collective agreement and awarding damages, and a decision denying reconsideration.

The employer had failed to participate in a related jurisdictional dispute or file a timely response to the grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions were neither procedurally unfair nor unreasonable, as the employer had ample opportunity to participate but chose not to do so until the eve of the damages hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that assigned scaffolding tending work to the Labourers rather than the Carpenters.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably failed to apply the 'specialty scaffolding contractor' exception from its past jurisprudence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, as the Board had considered the past jurisprudence but concluded the exception did not apply on the facts of this case, given the nature of the work and the overwhelming area practice at the Bruce Power site.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two decisions by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and rejected a constitutional challenge alleging that the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 violates the freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by failing to provide a right to strike.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision on the unfair labour practice was reasonable and its conclusion on the constitutional issue was correct, as it was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Fraser.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that denied their successor rights application following the merger of two construction companies.

The Board had awarded bargaining rights for formwork to the Carpenters' Union to avoid jurisdictional conflict, as the merged entity intermingled employees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to avoid jurisdictional conflict under section 69(6)(c) of the Labour Relations Act was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's preliminary award regarding jurisdiction over a workplace grievance.

The union argued the application was premature as the arbitration was not yet complete.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative process, and dismissed the application as premature.

The applicant Receiver sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring it a successor employer under the Labour Relations Act.

The Receiver had been operating an insolvent debtor's retirement home business for several years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable that the Receiver met the test for a successor employer.

The Court also agreed that section 14.06(1.2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not immunize a receiver from prospective collective bargaining obligations, but only from pre-appointment liabilities.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to order termination and severance pay against a related company and corporate directors following the employer's bankruptcy.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The Court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that he lacked jurisdiction to make orders against entities and individuals who were not parties to the collective agreement, noting that the related company was not a party and the Business Corporations Act requires a civil action to hold directors liable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The employer applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision which found that the employer's unilateral implementation of an electronic Grievance Management System (GMS) violated the collective agreement.

The collective agreement specified a process for filing grievances in writing to a designated officer.

The employer mandated that all grievances be filed through its proprietary GMS.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the GMS imposed mandatory conditions beyond those negotiated in the collective agreement, and thus was not a valid exercise of management rights.

The court issued a case management endorsement to schedule an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.

The hearing was scheduled to proceed by ZOOM videoconference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The court provided detailed procedural directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities, via an electronic drop box.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision confirming a work assignment to a competing union.

The Board had found that the factor of economy and efficiency favoured the competing union for scaffolding tending work.

The Divisional Court dismissed preliminary objections that the application was moot or premature.

On the merits, the Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable, as it was supported by evidence in the record, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Union and the City both brought applications for judicial review of an arbitrator's awards concerning the discharge of an employee.

The Union challenged the arbitrator's finding that the employee breached the collective agreement by failing to provide medical certificates, arguing the relevant provision only applied to employees eligible for the illness or injury plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Union's application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation reasonable.

The City challenged the arbitrator's remedy awards, arguing it was denied natural justice when the arbitrator excluded evidence of the employee's pre-2012 absenteeism based on a prior settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court granted the City's application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the settlement agreement was unreasonable and prevented the City from fully presenting its case on the viability of the employment relationship.

The matter of remedy was remitted to the arbitrator for a rehearing.

The Union and the City both brought applications for judicial review of an arbitrator's awards concerning the discharge of an employee.

The Union challenged the arbitrator's finding that the employee breached the collective agreement by failing to provide medical certificates, arguing the relevant provision only applied to employees eligible for the illness or injury plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Union's application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation reasonable.

The City challenged the arbitrator's remedy awards, arguing it was denied natural justice when the arbitrator excluded evidence of the employee's pre-2012 absenteeism based on a prior settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court granted the City's application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the settlement agreement was unreasonable and prevented the City from fully presenting its case on the viability of the employment relationship.

The matter of remedy was remitted to the arbitrator for a rehearing.

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it breached its duty to accommodate a disabled employee.

The employee, who could only work part-time, had been permitted to remain in the full-time bargaining unit for years, receiving better benefits.

The City eventually transferred him to the part-time unit.

The arbitrator held this transfer was discriminatory absent a change in circumstances or undue hardship.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable and inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's ruling in Orillia Hospital, which established that requiring work in exchange for compensation is a bona fide occupational requirement.

The arbitration award was quashed and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that allowed an employee to participate in a representation vote on a displacement application.

The applicant argued the employee should have been excluded under the April Waterproofing doctrine because he was not assigned to work by the incumbent union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably interpreted 'in the bargaining unit' based on the work being done and reasonably applied its current, more nuanced approach to the April Waterproofing doctrine.

Bell Canada brought an application for judicial review to set aside an arbitrator's award finding that Bell violated a collective agreement by outsourcing work, resulting in the loss of 31 jobs.

The arbitrator had determined that the affected employees, who were transferred from a wholly owned subsidiary following a single employer declaration under the Canada Labour Code, were entitled to outsourcing protection under a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreements and the remedial nature of the single employer declaration to be justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicant, Toronto Community Housing Corporation, sought judicial review of a grievance arbitration award that reinstated an employee who had been dismissed for cause.

The employee, a Tenant Services Coordinator, was alleged to have improperly sublet his unit and kept a rent payment.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence of misconduct and reinstated him.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, noting she ignored or improperly discounted evidence, including a rent receipt and written statements, and failed to assess credibility.

The Court quashed the award and remitted the matter for a rehearing before a different arbitrator.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that reduced the City's recovery of fraudulently obtained health benefits from a former employee by 50%.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision, finding a denial of procedural fairness because the arbitrator rejected the application of the collective agreement's overpayment provision without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions.

The Court also found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, as she erred in finding concurrent jurisdiction with the courts and misapplied the Negligence Act to reduce the recovery based on the employee's theoretical right to seek contribution from a co-fraudster.