Elizabeth J. McIntyre

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the wage rates for its registered nurses based on a hospital comparator rather than a nursing home comparator.

The employer argued the arbitration board's reasons failed to meet the Dunsmuir standard of justification, transparency, and intelligibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that in the context of an expeditious interest arbitration where the comparator issue was central and heavily litigated, the board's brief reasons adequately explained the basis for its decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.

At the hearing, the applicant attempted to raise new arguments and issues that were not raised before the arbitrator.

Citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Alberta Teachers' Association, the Divisional Court refused to consider the new issues, noting the prejudice to the respondent and the loss of the specialized tribunal's views.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to remit the matter back to the arbitrator without consent, which the respondent refused.

The court offered the applicant the option to withdraw the application without a determination on the merits.

On consent, the application was withdrawn, and the applicant was ordered to pay $3,500 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code after the Commission decided not to refer her complaint to the Tribunal.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had already dealt with the merits of the complaint.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the Commission's decision not to refer the complaint constituted dealing with its merits, and the applicant's subsequent request for reconsideration did not vitiate that decision.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of two interest arbitration awards that ordered retroactive wage increases for employees who were no longer actively employed.

The hospital argued that retroactivity was not a matter in dispute between the parties and that the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction and denied procedural fairness by deciding the issue without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that the board's decision was unreasonable because it failed to explain why it was necessary to deal with retroactivity when the parties had agreed it was not in dispute.

The Court also found a denial of procedural fairness and set aside the portion of the awards dealing with retroactivity.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a decision by the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) to approve a Service Accountability Agreement with a hospital, which included a plan to consolidate mental health services to eliminate a budget deficit.

The applicant argued the LHIN failed to engage in required public consultation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LHIN's funding decision did not constitute an 'integration decision' under the Local Health System Integration Act that would trigger statutory consultation requirements.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or legitimate expectations.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board decision that upheld the constitutionality of s. 58(5)(c) of the Employment Standards Act.

The provision denied severance pay to employees whose contracts were frustrated due to illness or injury.

The Divisional Court found that the provision discriminated against severely disabled employees, violating s. 15(1) of the Charter, and was not saved by s. 1.

The offending words were struck down, and the disabled employee was awarded severance pay.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that the responding party service providers and the community care access centre constituted a single employer.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that even if the prerequisites of section 1(4) were met, the Board should not exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.

The Board agreed, finding that the loss of work by the unionized service provider was due to a government-mandated competitive bidding process, not a scheme to defeat bargaining rights.

The Board concluded there was no labour relations mischief to remedy and dismissed the application without a hearing on the merits.

The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) applied to intervene in an appeal concerning whether incest is a separate tort not subject to the Limitations Act, or alternatively, whether the doctrine of reasonable discoverability applies.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that LEAF intended to raise the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an interpretive tool for the first time on appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the application, finding that LEAF had a sufficient interest and would bring a special perspective to the appeal.

The Court left the determination of whether the Charter argument would cause prejudice to the respondent to be decided by the panel hearing the appeal.