Frank Cesario

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue her grievance regarding her layoff and dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence, and did not involve a denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his application for judicial review, arguing he did not receive the required notice.

The court accepted that the notice was sent to an incorrect postal code and set aside the dismissal, without prejudice to the respondents bringing a separate motion to dismiss for delay.

The court also granted the applicant leave to amend his application to include the final decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and dismissed his request for relief regarding the conduct of opposing counsel.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union policy grievance regarding unilateral changes to employee health benefit plans.

The employer argued the grievance was improperly filed as a policy grievance, improperly expanded in scope, and that the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's conclusions on arbitrability, scope, and interpretation of the collective agreement fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants, two Dutch companies, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to set aside service ex juris and stay the wrongful dismissal action against them.

The Court of Appeal applied the Van Breda test and found that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction over both foreign defendants.

The court held that the foreign parent company was a necessary and proper party and that the foreign foundation holding the employee's shares had a real and substantial connection to Ontario because it withheld the share sale proceeds to the potential benefit of the North American subsidiaries' counterclaim.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to have no costs awarded following an unsuccessful application and motion.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event, as there was no novel issue or public interest raised.

The court rejected the York University Faculty Association's request for substantial indemnity costs and awarded $1,500 to York University and $3,500 to the Faculty Association, payable by the applicant.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the assignment of teaching duties to principals and vice-principals.

The school board's assignment of these duties resulted in partial redundancies for some bargaining unit teachers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable.

The court held that section 287.1(1) of the Education Act unambiguously permits a school board to assign teaching duties to principals and vice-principals, and that such assignments did not constitute a declaration of redundancy under O. Reg. 90/98.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board that adjourned his unfair representation complaints against the faculty association pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and unreasonableness in the Board's decision to grant the adjournment and extend time for the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Board's discretionary decision to adjourn the premature complaints was reasonable.

The Court also noted the application was premature as the Board had not yet determined the merits of the complaints.

Following an oral decision allowing the appeal, the successful appellant sought its costs at trial, which it had requested in its written materials but omitted from its oral costs submissions.

The Court of Appeal issued a supplementary endorsement granting the appellant its costs at trial, to be assessed if not agreed.

The applicant university sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it violated the collective agreement by requiring students in an introductory psychology class to mark the work of other students without pay.

The arbitrator concluded that the students performing the marking function were members of the bargaining unit, relying on past grievance settlements that established an agreed interpretation prohibiting unpaid student labour for teaching and evaluation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and consistent with past interpretations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision regarding health benefits coverage.

The City brought a preliminary motion to quash the application for delay, which the court dismissed, finding no inordinate delay or prejudice.

On the merits, the court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision.

The court found that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the language of the collective agreement was unambiguous and correctly declined to admit extrinsic evidence.

The respondent was awarded damages at trial for breach of contract after the trial judge found he had accepted an unconditional offer for an early retirement severance package.

The appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in construing the severance plan documents as an unconditional offer.

The Court held that an objective reasonable person in the respondent's position would not have understood the documents to make an unconditional offer, especially since the respondent knew he was being replaced and the program was for workforce reduction.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant commenced an action in negligence against her husband's employer for damages arising from his alleged wrongful dismissal.

The husband was a unionized employee whose grievance had been settled under a collective agreement.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim based on the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that any claim related to the employment should have been pursued under the collective agreement and the appellant had no independent cause of action.

The appellant appealed a decision declaring that certain disputed claims, including a claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from a long-term supply agreement, were subject to arbitration.

The appellant argued the claims were not referable to specific provisions of the agreement and that the application judge usurped the arbitral tribunal's role.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the claims and that the application judge merely determined the claims were not clearly outside the scope of the arbitration clause.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission approving a reduced number of race days for two racetracks in 2007.

The applicant alleged a breach of procedural fairness and an error in denying it party status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, noting the applicant waited five months into the racing season to bring the application, which would cause substantial prejudice to the racetracks if the calendar were overturned.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal a motions judge's refusal to strike out the plaintiff's claims for 'knowing assistance of breach of fiduciary duty' and 'assisting or facilitating breach of contract' in a proposed class action arising from investments in a hedge fund.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that there were conflicting decisions regarding the existence of the tort of assisting breach of contract, and good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision regarding knowing assistance of breach of fiduciary duty given the plaintiff was not a client of the defendants.

The issues were deemed to be of general importance to the investment industry.

The appellant husband appealed a divorce judgment ordering him to pay an equalization payment of over $7 million and $35,000 monthly in spousal support.

He challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the ownership of the matrimonial home, the quantum of spousal support, unconscionability under the Family Law Act, and the disbursement of funds held in court.

He also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the motion, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal conclusions, and noting the fresh evidence could have been discovered with due diligence.

The applicant sought judicial review of preliminary procedural rulings made by a university Faculty Disciplinary Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the discipline proceedings had not yet been completed and there was a right of appeal to the University Appeal Committee.

The court found no evidence of corruption or bias that would justify interfering at this stage.

The appellant law firm obtained a charging order for its legal fees against funds held in court that were generated from litigation in which it represented the respondent husband.

In the underlying matrimonial proceedings, the motion judge dismissed the law firm's motion for payment out of the funds, instead ordering the funds paid to the respondent wife as retroactive spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the law firm's appeal, holding that the motion judge was entitled to treat the funds as available for spousal support and had the discretion to refuse to give the charging order priority over spousal support.

The appellant lawyer sued his former law firm and its managing partner for defamation based on comments published in a legal newspaper following his departure from the firm.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the statement of claim on the basis that the words were not reasonably capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the impugned words, when construed in context and according to their natural meaning, were not capable of meaning that the appellant was forced out, unable to work as a team, selfish, or unprofessional.

The appeal and a motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The respondent resigned as a partner from the appellant law firm and commenced an action asserting financial claims, a claim regarding the transfer of client files, and a dispute over a non-competition clause.

The appellant moved to stay the claims on the basis that they were subject to mandatory arbitration under the partnership agreement.

The motion judge declined to order a stay.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitration clause, which covered any dispute 'in connection with' the agreement, was broad enough to encompass all of the respondent's claims.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered that the action be stayed.