3 total
Judicial review of interest arbitration award dismissed; brief reasons sufficient in context of expeditious process.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the wage rates for its registered nurses based on a hospital comparator rather than a nursing home comparator.
The employer argued the arbitration board's reasons failed to meet the Dunsmuir standard of justification, transparency, and intelligibility.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that in the context of an expeditious interest arbitration where the comparator issue was central and heavily litigated, the board's brief reasons adequately explained the basis for its decision.
Wrongful dismissal notice period reduced from 14 to 7 months for short-service employee.
The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee 14 months' pay in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal.
The respondent was a younger employee with 2.5 years of service in a middle management position.
The trial judge had enhanced the notice period due to the employer's failure to provide a promised reference letter.
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of a valid employment agreement but found the 14-month notice period manifestly excessive.
The Court reduced the notice period to 7 months, finding it to be a reasonable, albeit generous, period that included a modest enhancement under Wallace principles.
Appeal dismissed; bankruptcy judge properly exercised discretion in finding unions' motion for leave to pursue successor employer application premature.
The Royal Crest Lifecare Group Inc. was petitioned into bankruptcy and Ernst & Young was appointed as trustee.
The trustee sought an order that it not be bound by the collective agreements and not be deemed a successor employer.
The unions brought a cross-motion seeking leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to pursue an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board to designate the trustee as a successor employer.
The bankruptcy judge dismissed both motions as premature.
The unions appealed the dismissal of their cross-motion.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bankruptcy judge did not err in the exercise of his discretion by deciding that the cross-motion was premature.
