Ella Bedard

The plaintiff and the franchisee defendants brought motions for leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated December 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $5,000 each and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek judicial review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering her to pay unpaid wages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under section 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedures Act.

Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate apparent grounds for relief because she failed to pursue an adequate alternative remedy before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and she failed to show that the delay would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent employee.

The plaintiff and the defendant Tofield Pizza Hut consented to a motion to remove Tofield Pizza Hut from a proposed employment misclassification class action.

The plaintiff accepted that Tofield Pizza Hut did not misclassify its delivery drivers as independent contractors.

The court granted the motion, finding that the dismissal would not prejudice the prospective class as no putative class member had a viable claim against this specific defendant.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award regarding the interpretation of early retirement and voluntary exit provisions in a collective agreement.

The arbitration panel found that the benefits must be offered to all employees within a classification based on seniority, rejecting the hospital's past practice of offering them strictly on a full-time to full-time and part-time to part-time basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the panel's interpretation of the collective agreement and its treatment of past practice evidence were reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

The applicants, two student associations, sought judicial review to quash the Minister's 'Student Choice Initiative' directives, which required colleges and universities to allow students to opt out of student association fees.

The Divisional Court found the directives justiciable, rejecting the government's arguments that they were immune from review as core policy decisions or exercises of the Crown's prerogative spending power.

The Court held that the directives were unlawful because they conflicted with the statutory schemes governing colleges and universities, which protect the autonomy of universities and the normal activities of college student associations.

The application was granted and the directives were quashed.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that required it to provide long-term disability (LTD) benefits to employees working past age 65.

The collective agreement referenced a 1992 benefits booklet that did not explicitly terminate coverage at age 65, unlike the master insurance plan.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding it was a defensible interpretation of the collective agreement and consistent with arbitral jurisprudence regarding the elimination of mandatory retirement.