Frank Cesario

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that required it to pay an employee his hourly wage for time spent commuting between an out-of-town hotel and a job site in a rental car provided by the employer.

The arbitrator found that the rental car constituted the 'Employer's equipment' under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's practical, common-sense interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision interpreting the overtime provisions of a collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that overtime pay was based on hours actually worked rather than scheduled hours.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's interpretation was logical, transparent, and justified by the wording of the collective agreement.

The court also dismissed a motion to admit fresh evidence, finding the evidence was already before the arbitrator and not essential to the decision.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his claim of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related foot injury, argued that his employer discriminated against him by applying its absenteeism policy and failing to accommodate him.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review is reasonableness and found that the HRTO reasonably concluded the employer's application of its policies was not discriminatory, as the employer was entitled to rely on the WSIB's finding that the injury did not prevent the applicant from working.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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 union applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's supplementary decision regarding the termination of employee benefits during the discipline process.

The arbitrator found that the employer's obligation to continue providing benefits to employees grieving their dismissal up to step three of the grievance procedure only lasted until the expiry of the collective agreement and the statutory freeze.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's decision was based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the Ontario Ombudsman.

The motion judge proceeded in the appellant's absence after finding he knew of the motion and chose not to participate.

The motion judge dismissed the action because the respondent was immune from proceedings absent bad faith, and the appellant provided no evidence of bad faith.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision to proceed or in granting summary judgment, and dismissed the appeal.

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.

Roch Longueépée, largely successful in his appeal, sought partial indemnity costs from the University of Waterloo and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found Longueépée entitled to costs against the University, fixing them at $25,000.

The court also awarded costs against the HRTO, fixed at $7,500, because its arguments on the standard of review and request for a five-judge panel expanded the scope of the appeal, even though its position was not taken in bad faith.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee terminated for sexual harassment and dishonesty during the investigation.

The arbitrator had substituted the dismissal with a 30-day suspension and a condition that any future sexual harassment would result in automatic termination, binding any future arbitrator to only determine if harassment occurred.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's finding that termination was not the only appropriate penalty, as it was based on reasonable factual findings.

However, the Court found the penalty unreasonable because the arbitrator lacked statutory authority under the Labour Relations Act to bind future arbitrators.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the arbitrator to determine the appropriate penalty.

The respondent applied to the University of Waterloo as a transfer student but did not meet the academic standards due to prior grades affected by undiagnosed disabilities.

The University's Admissions Committee rejected his application based solely on those unaccommodated grades.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the University met its duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court set aside the HRTO decision as unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO decision was unreasonable, as the University could not rely solely on unaccommodated grades to demonstrate reasonable accommodation, but varied the remedy to remit the matter back to the HRTO rather than the Admissions Committee.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reinstating a railway conductor who was terminated following a positive urine test for marijuana.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably excluded an expert report on marijuana impairment tendered eight days before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably exercised his discretion to exclude the late report to protect the integrity and fairness of the expedited arbitration process.

The Court also upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that a positive urine test, without corroborating evidence of impairment, did not establish a violation of the employer's drug policy.

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 applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that harmonized wages for a newly merged bargaining unit to the highest pre-existing rate.

The Board of Arbitration based its decision on a well-established pattern of post-merger harmonization in the hospital sector, without analyzing the hospital's arguments that its specific circumstances were unique.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons meeting the minimum standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility as required by Vavilov.

The matter was remitted to the Board.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interlocutory evidentiary ruling regarding settlement privilege in one of 11 test cases concerning employee benefits fraud.

The parties had agreed that the ruling in this test case would apply to the other ten.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the agreement to apply the ruling across test cases did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the fragmentation of the administrative process.

The court emphasized that labour arbitration cases should generally be decided finally before judicial review is sought.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a non-contracting out provision for a newly created Customer Service Agent position.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because both parties had agreed in written submissions that the issue of contracting out would be left for a future arbitrator, yet the arbitrator decided the issue anyway.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by deciding an issue without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions.

The application for judicial review was allowed in part, and the relevant portions of the award were set aside and remitted to the arbitrator.

The employer applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union grievance over Accidental Death benefits.

A firefighter died of lung cancer, an occupational disease presumed work-related under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The employer's insurance carrier denied the claim based on an illness/disease exclusion clause.

The arbitrator found the collective agreement obligated the employer to provide Accidental Death benefits, which at law includes occupational diseases, and that the insurance policy's exclusion could not diminish this bargained benefit.

The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov reasonableness standard and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the insurance policy was justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The Applicant, MPAC, sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted three employees a portion of an enhanced severance payment.

The employees were originally temporary employees who later became non-temporary.

MPAC argued the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable and inconsistent with a prior award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the Letter of Understanding was reasonable and consistent with the express wording of the agreement.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's Rule 21 motion, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the motion was ill-conceived.

The court held that while the motion was premised on an erroneous view of the law, the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $9,500.

A provincially incorporated contractor providing construction services to federally regulated telecommunications companies sought to challenge a provincial labour relations board's certification of its construction technicians as a provincially regulated bargaining unit.

The contractor argued that its construction technicians performed work vital, essential, or integral to federal undertakings and should therefore be subject to federal labour jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations was not displaced.

The court found that the federal undertaking (Rogers) was not dependent on the contractor's construction technicians, and that the proper focus in derivative jurisdiction analysis is whether the federal undertaking is dependent on the particular employees in question, not whether the work performed is generally important to the federal undertaking.