Glenn Peter Christie

The union grieved that the grievor was not paid the correct premium for working on a statutory holiday.

The union argued that working on a statutory holiday constituted overtime, and because the grievor was forced to work, she was entitled to a higher premium rate under the collective agreement.

The employer maintained that statutory holiday work and overtime were governed by separate provisions, and the statutory holiday provision did not include an enhanced premium for forced work.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement treated overtime and statutory holiday pay as separate and distinct, and the hours worked on the statutory holiday did not attract the forced overtime premium.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a loss of five days' pay imposed after he was found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to submit an Arrest Report prior to a fingerprint and court date.

The appellant argued the penalty was excessive and that the hearing officer erred by considering his entire disciplinary history rather than just a prior informal reprimand for the same misconduct.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that an officer's entire disciplinary history is a relevant consideration for progressive discipline and that the hearing officer applied the correct dispositional principles without manifest error.

The respondent, a deputy chief of police, sought a declaration that the fixed-term provision in his employment contract was void after the police services board declined to renew it.

The application judge found the provision was a colourable device to bypass statutory termination procedures and declared it void.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment, finding no evidence of an ulterior motive.

The Court held that the expiry of a fixed-term contract does not constitute a dismissal under the Police Services Act, and that a three-year term does not undermine the independence required of a deputy chief.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award and a decision of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission.

The arbitrator had dismissed a grievance regarding the inclusion of cadet service in the calculation of 'continuous active service' for a seniority premium, finding he lacked jurisdiction to define the term as the parties had not yet done so.

The Commission subsequently refused to appoint a conciliation officer, finding no notice to bargain had been given for the current collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review for the arbitration award was patent unreasonableness and for the Commission's decision was reasonableness.

The Court found neither decision met the threshold for intervention and dismissed both applications for judicial review.

The Grievor, who had returned to work after a stem cell transplant for cancer, was required to attend regular follow-up appointments at the hospital.

The employer denied his request to use short-term sick leave benefits for these absences, arguing he was not 'unable to attend to his duties due to sickness' as required by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the mandatory five-year follow-up protocol was an integral part of the Grievor's initial cancer treatment.

Therefore, the absences qualified for paid sick leave under the collective agreement.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints of unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant had been suspended twice by his employer following work refusals.

The Board found the discipline was imposed for threats and engaging in an illegal work stoppage, not for raising safety concerns.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding no reviewable error in the Board's factual determinations.

The grievor, a bus driver with 16 years of service, was terminated after writing and posting a threatening letter to a female co-worker who had left garbage on a bus.

The grievor had a prior disciplinary record, including a recent six-day suspension for insubordination.

The Union argued that termination was excessive and proposed a last chance agreement, citing the grievor's medical history of depression.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the discharge, finding the threat was premeditated, the grievor lacked true remorse, and no medical evidence was led to support a last chance agreement or mitigate the risk of future workplace violence.

In an addendum regarding costs, the court considered the written submissions of the parties and the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the principle that costs must be reasonable and fair, the court fixed costs at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from orders dismissing its motion to decertify a wrongful dismissal class action and varying the process for adjudicating individual claims.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred in finding common issues and a workable plan, and in altering the application of Rule 49.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's orders and noting that the Class Proceedings Act provides broad discretion to manage individual issues.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to decertify a wrongful dismissal class action and varying the process for adjudicating individual claims.

The class action involved former employees terminated after mass store closures.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred in finding common issues and a workable plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's orders and noting that the Class Proceedings Act provides adequate mechanisms to handle individual issues.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that limited her long-term disability benefits and assessed her wrongful dismissal notice period at 12 months.

The respondent cross-appealed the calculation of short-term disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to mitigate her disability by not seeking medical assistance.

The court increased the notice period to 18 months based on the Bardal factors.

The cross-appeal was dismissed, affirming that short-term benefits should be calculated on base pay and commissions.

The plaintiff appealed a Divisional Court decision setting aside a motion judge's order that appointed judges and judicial officers as referees to determine individual class members' claims under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a court cannot appoint a judge or judicial officer to conduct a reference under s. 25(1)(b) of the Class Proceedings Act without first obtaining the authorization of the Chief Justice or her designate under s. 14(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The consent of individual judicial officers is not an adequate substitute for the Chief Justice's overarching responsibility for judicial assignments.

The employer, Great Blue Heron Gaming Company, and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation brought motions to stay a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) pending judicial review.

The OLRB had determined that the Ontario Labour Relations Act applied to the employer's casino operations on the reserve, rejecting the First Nation's argument that its own Labour Code applied pursuant to aboriginal rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay motions, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing collective bargaining to proceed for the 800 employees who had voted for union representation over a year prior.

The appellant employer appealed a motion judge's order regarding the plaintiff employee's claim for long-term disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in finding the collective agreement's benefits terms fell within Brown & Beatty's third category.

The language of the collective agreement and Letter of Understanding clearly incorporated the benefits plan into the collective agreement, meaning disputes over entitlement must be submitted to arbitration.

The appeal was allowed and the civil action against the employer was dismissed.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates in November and December 2001 due to the anticipated passage of Bill 130.

The applicant undertook to advise the Board by December 20, 2001, whether it would also seek to adjourn the January 2002 hearing dates.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of business and seeking a related employer declaration after the Red Cross ceased its homemaking operations and the work was reassigned by the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) to other service providers.

The responding parties brought a Rule 46 request to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the section 69 sale of business application on a prima facie basis, finding that it could not conclude without evidence that only work, rather than part of a business, was transferred.

However, the Board dismissed the section 1(4) related employer application, holding that even if common control and direction existed, it would not exercise its discretion to make a declaration because the CCAC's control was regulatory and statutory, and the relationship was a bona fide subcontracting arrangement rather than an artificial erosion of bargaining rights.

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 applicant, Zellers Incorporated, sought a review of an Order to Pay severance pay to the claimant following the closure of a Kmart store.

The applicant argued it was relieved of the obligation to pay severance because it had offered the claimant reasonable alternative employment at another store location.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the alternative position offered was reasonable, as its advantages outweighed the sole disadvantage of a longer bus commute.

The Board rescinded the Order to Pay, concluding the applicant was not obliged to pay severance pay.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by cancelling its nursing services contracts shortly after a first collective agreement was imposed by interest arbitration.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case, arguing the employees were casual and suffered no change in status.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding the union pled sufficient facts to put the employer to its defence regarding its motivation for cancelling the contracts.

The Board also denied the union's request for production of a subsequent bid document.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the hearing, the union withdrew its allegations under section 63(16).

The Board granted the application and terminated the union's bargaining rights based on the results of a representation vote.

The Board remained seized to determine the applicant's request for costs and set a schedule for written submissions.