Emily Home

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, upholding the Divisional Court’s decision to quash an arbitration award that reinstated five employees dismissed by Metrolinx for sexual harassment.

The Court found that the arbitrator made legal and factual errors, including failing to recognize Metrolinx’s statutory duty to investigate workplace harassment even in the absence of a formal complaint, and improperly relying on myths and stereotypes about victim behaviour.

The matter was remitted to a new arbitrator for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to delay.

The applicant had waited over six years after his pension was transferred to file the complaint, having pursued other litigation in the interim.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to dismiss the application for delay was reasonable, noting that pursuing other litigation does not justify delay and that the Board is entitled to control its own process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision striking down the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, which eliminated TTC employees' right to strike and replaced it with binding interest arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the complete ban on strikes violates the employees' right to meaningful collective bargaining under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court further found that the Crown failed to justify the infringement under s. 1, as it did not demonstrate that the complete ban was minimally impairing or that its salutary effects outweighed the deleterious effects on the workers' Charter rights.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating five employees who were terminated for engaging in a sexually harassing WhatsApp group chat.

The arbitrator had found the investigation flawed because the targeted employee refused to file a formal complaint and the conduct occurred off-duty.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the arbitrator's reasoning was unreasonable as it failed to recognize the employer's statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to investigate incidents of workplace harassment regardless of whether a formal complaint is filed.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

Two teachers' unions sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding collective bargaining with the Crown.

The OLRB had dismissed OSSTF's claim of bad faith bargaining, finding the Crown did not misrepresent its position on grid movement grievances.

The OLRB upheld ETFO's claim of bad faith bargaining but declined to award monetary damages, instead ordering a declaration and notice to members.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed both applications, finding the OLRB's factual findings, inferences, and remedial choices were logical, transparent, and entitled to deference given its labour relations expertise.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued supplementary reasons regarding the remedy and costs following its prior decision (2023 ONCA 139) which declared s. 37.10.1(2) of the Election Finances Act unconstitutional.

The appellants sought to invalidate additional provisions, including the definition of "political advertising" s. 37.0.1, s. 37.10.1(3)-(3.1), and s. 37.10.2.

The court declined this request, finding these provisions were not inextricably linked to the previously invalidated section and were not independently shown to infringe section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court also noted that the election period spending limits (s. 37.10.1(1)) were not challenged and remain in force.

No disposition was made as to costs, as the parties had reached an agreement.

The Applicants challenged the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, arguing it infringed their freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by prohibiting the right to strike and replacing it with compulsory binding interest arbitration.

The court found the Act substantially interfered with meaningful collective bargaining and was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as the TTC was not an "essential service" in the constitutional sense, and the economic and equity concerns did not justify the complete prohibition of the right to strike.

The Act was declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

This appeal concerned the constitutional validity of Ontario's third-party election spending limits, specifically the extension of the pre-writ restricted period from 6 to 12 months without increasing the spending cap.

The appellants argued this infringed the informational component of the right to vote under s. 3 of the Charter, which is not subject to the notwithstanding clause (s. 33).

The Court of Appeal found that while s. 33 was properly invoked, the extended spending restrictions were not "carefully tailored" and did not permit a "modest informational campaign" thereby infringing the s. 3 right to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court declared the impugned provision invalid and suspended the declaration for 12 months.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act that imposed a 12-month pre-writ restricted spending period for third-party political advertising.

The government had previously enacted similar amendments that were struck down under section 2(b) of the Charter, but re-enacted them using the section 33 notwithstanding clause.

The applicants argued the amendments violated the right to vote under section 3 of the Charter, which is not subject to the notwithstanding clause.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the spending limits were carefully tailored to the egalitarian model of elections and did not infringe the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

The applicant unions sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondent employers from enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies pending the outcome of labour arbitrations.

The court dismissed the Sinai application on the basis that the labour arbitration process provided an adequate alternative remedy, precluding the exercise of the court's residual jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the TTC application on the merits of the injunction test, finding that the loss of employment or income did not constitute irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the employer's obligation to protect public health and workplace safety.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following an appeal that proceeded in writing.

The court awarded costs of $6,500, including disbursements and taxes, to the respondent, The University of Toronto.

The court noted that the appeal issues were not complex and largely replicated submissions made at first instance.

The plaintiffs sought to schedule an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the closure of schools to in-person learning in York Region due to COVID-19, prior to commencing a formal proceeding.

Several unions and school boards sought to intervene.

The court scheduled the injunction motion conditionally, requiring the plaintiffs to formally commence an action or application first.

The court declined to schedule the intervention motions on an urgent basis, finding it would be unfair to the responding parties given the tight timeline.

The appellant sought to overturn the denial of an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing the enforcement of a trespass notice issued by the respondent university.

The notice was impeding the appellant's studies and jeopardizing his student visa status, pending a Human Rights Tribunal proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's assessment of evidence or misapplication of the interlocutory injunction test.

The court upheld the finding that the balance of convenience favored the university, given the serious threats perceived and the inadequacy of the medical information provided by the appellant.

The plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, sued the defendant for breach of contract for an unpaid leasing commission on a commercial property.

The core issues involved whether an Offer to Lease was terminated, whether a subsequent lease with a Loblaw affiliate (Shoppers Drug Mart) fulfilled the commission agreement's conditions, and the interpretation of the "Tenant" definition to include after-acquired affiliates.

The court found that the Offer to Lease was not terminated, the Shoppers Lease substantially fulfilled the conditions, and the definition of "Tenant" objectively included entities that became Loblaw affiliates within the specified 24-month period.

The plaintiff was awarded the commission, but interest was limited to 5% per annum due to a violation of the Interest Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's inability to work was due to his personality rather than his compensable chronic pain disorder, basing this on negative credibility findings.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable because it substituted its own opinion for uncontroverted medical evidence and failed to account for the Board's own policy describing the symptoms of the applicant's condition.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The plaintiff, Westmount-Keele Limited, purchased a hotel from the defendants, Royal Host Hotels and Resorts Real Estate Investment Trust and North York (Keele St.) Purchaseco Inc., with an agreement to reimburse Royal Host for up to $2 million in hotel closure costs.

Westmount's obligation was secured by a mortgage, later replaced by $2.2 million paid into court.

The central issue was to determine Royal Host's entitlement from these funds.

The court found Royal Host's initial claim of over $2.1 million in closing costs to be largely unsubstantiated, particularly a fictitious franchise termination fee.

The court determined that Royal Host was entitled to $638,201 plus prejudgment interest at a blended rate of 1.72%, significantly less than claimed, and Westmount was entitled to the return of the remaining funds.

The court also found Royal Host's conduct contributed to the delay in proceedings.