Douglas John Wray

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.

The employer sought an interim stay of Ontario Labour Relations Board orders that found certain franchisees to be dependent contractors, pending an application for judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the judicial review application was premature as the certification process was ongoing.

The court also held that the employer failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged harms were speculative, and the balance of convenience favoured the union due to the lengthy delays already experienced in the certification process.

The applicant employer brought a motion for an interim stay of a grievance arbitration award that reinstated an employee who had been dismissed for allegedly subletting his rental unit improperly.

The court determined that the applicable test for staying a labour arbitration award requires the moving party to establish a strong prima facie case, rather than merely a serious issue to be tried.

The court found the employer failed to meet this threshold because it had called no direct evidence at the arbitration to challenge the employee's testimony.

The motion for a stay was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent union.

The applicant filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry regarding an application that she had withdrawn three years earlier.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the file had been closed upon withdrawal and the matter was at an end, meaning there was no active application upon which to file requests.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding a work jurisdiction dispute over exterior concrete formwork at a hospital construction project.

The Board had upheld the employer's assignment of the work to a composite crew of Carpenters and Labourers, finding that the Labourers' collective agreement did not explicitly claim the disputed work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that the Board was not bound to follow its prior decisions where the circumstances or arguments differed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her complaint against the City of Toronto as an abuse of process, and against her union and its counsel for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant had previously settled her grievance and human rights complaint with the City but later filed a new complaint, alleging she signed the settlement under duress from her union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decision was reasonable and correct, as the settlement was binding and the allegations of duress did not invalidate it.

The plaintiff, Bob Kinnear, on behalf of Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant, Lawrence J. Hanley, representing the Amalgamated Transit Union (International), from imposing a trusteeship over Local 113 and from disciplining its members.

The motion also sought to authorize Kinnear to represent Local 113 members and to have Local 113 provide the undertaking as to damages.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction to restrain the trusteeship and ordered Local 113 to provide the undertaking, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the unconscionability of International's constitution, irreparable harm to democratic rights, and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The request for a representative order was deferred.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been reinstated by an arbitrator without back pay after a three-year delay in the arbitration decision.

The union initially sought judicial review to compel the arbitrator's reasons but abandoned the application once reasons were provided, concluding it was unlikely to succeed.

The Divisional Court found the Board's conclusion that the union acted reasonably to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application for judicial review of an OLRB decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint.

The applicant filed an application record containing numerous documents that were not before the OLRB.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike the application record.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, noting the general rule that judicial review is based on the record before the original decision-maker, and no exception applied to admit the new documents.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that mitigated the termination of an employee who engaged in a sophisticated scheme of job-related thefts.

The arbitrator had reinstated the employee for the purpose of applying for long-term disability benefits, finding that the employee's undiagnosed PTSD and depression 'clouded' the thefts.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the award, holding that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable because it relied on contradictory findings regarding the medical evidence and failed to establish a clear nexus between the PTSD and the premeditated thefts.

The applicant's employment was terminated and his union took the matter to arbitration.

After an inordinate delay, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement but denied compensation for lost wages.

The union, relying on legal advice, declined to seek judicial review of the award.

The applicant sought standing to bring his own application for judicial review, which was denied by a motions judge.

On a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to vary that decision, the court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the applicant did not fall within any of the exceptions to the rule of union exclusivity.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union and refusing reconsideration.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Board failed to contact it by telephone, and that the Board's finding regarding delivery of the certification application was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the procedural fairness argument was not raised before the Board and the Board's decision on delivery was reasonable based on the evidence.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent union.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a rival union.

The applicant argued the Board breached natural justice by denying its request for production of documents related to alleged employer support for the rival union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's denial of the production request was an exercise of its statutory discretion under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, not an issue of natural justice.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the applicant had not established a foundation for its case and was improperly seeking production to determine if it had one.

The applicant was terminated from his employment and his union, CUPE Local 79, represented him in an arbitration that resulted in his reinstatement without retroactive compensation.

The arbitrator's reasons were delayed by three years.

The union declined to seek judicial review of the decision.

The applicant sought to pursue judicial review on his own behalf, alleging a breach of natural justice due to the delay.

The respondents brought a motion challenging his standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the applications, holding that the applicant did not fall within the narrow exceptions to the principle of union exclusivity, as there was no evidence of inadequate representation by the union.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed at a preliminary hearing on the basis that the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement and a Final Release and Indemnity regarding her termination.

The applicant argued she signed under duress and did not understand the documents.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or lack of understanding, noting she received a severance package exceeding statutory minimums and had union representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer as an abuse of process, and dismissed the application against the union and its counsel as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of an arbitration award requiring it to potentially adjust and top-up a grievor's pension upon retirement.

The grievor had been on WSIB and granted a disability waiver of pension contributions.

The arbitrator found that under the Collective Agreement, the City was obligated to treat the grievor as an active employee and make her pension whole.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Collective Agreement was reasonable and justified.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The applicant argued she was not given a fair opportunity at the arbitration hearing and that the Tribunal would be more expeditious.

The Tribunal noted that the arbitration was already seven days in, and the union had indicated a desire to withdraw the grievance, which the City opposed.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that doing so in the middle of the arbitration would undermine the purpose of the initial deferral.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing an unfair labour practice complaint.

The union alleged the employer violated the statutory freeze period under s. 86 of the Labour Relations Act by reducing employee benefits after the applicant displaced the incumbent union.

The Board found that the employer's obligation was only to pay premiums to the incumbent union's trust fund, which became impossible upon displacement.

Applying the 'reasonable expectations' test, the Board concluded the employer's substituted benefit plan was reasonably comparable and did not violate s. 86.

The Divisional Court held the Board's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant local unions sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board finding that the international union had just cause to merge them with another local.

The applicants challenged the Board's use of a consultation process rather than a full hearing, and its refusal to order production of a specific report.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's choice of process was within reasonable expectations given its expertise.

Although the Court criticized the Board's failure to order production of the report, it declined to quash the decision, finding the merger was supported by an independent expert's unqualified recommendation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of four decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, including procedural decisions denying an adjournment and change of venue, and a final decision declaring the applicants to be one employer bound to certain collective agreements.

The applicants argued the Board breached natural justice by refusing to adjourn the hearing from Toronto to Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's travel policy reasonable and noting the applicants failed to provide adequate reasons for their non-attendance when invited to do so.

The Court also upheld the Board's document production order.