Ian J. Fellows

The Toronto Transit Commission sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that found a two-year lockout for employees failing safety training to be unreasonable.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the board acted unreasonably by implying a duty on the employer to act reasonably without identifying any express language in the collective agreement limiting management rights, nor finding bad faith or disciplinary action.

The award was quashed and remitted to the board to consider whether the lockout intruded on seniority or working conditions provisions, or constituted a disciplinary penalty.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of a grievor for innocent absenteeism.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining that the standard of review for whether the grievor suffered from a disability was reasonableness.

The court found the arbitrator reasonably concluded the grievor was not disabled, given the lack of medical evidence regarding his absences.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's finding of just cause for dismissal based on the grievor's attendance record.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review.

The Court found that the Board was fully cognizant of the relevant facts and legal principles, and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The member, a secondary school teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for acting inappropriately and unprofessionally with students, including discussing and showing his nipple ring, roughhousing, poking and tickling students, and using inappropriate language.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication of the decision, and the successful completion of a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries with students.

The applicant sought judicial review of a 1997 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints against his union under sections 74 and 76 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the four-and-a-half-year delay in bringing the application was undue and inadequately explained.

Furthermore, applying the patent unreasonableness standard of review, the court held that the Board's conclusion that the union had not acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant also failed to exhaust alternative remedies regarding the section 76 claim.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's practice of requiring employees to submit to medical examinations by a doctor of the employer's choosing.

The collective agreement allowed the employer to require medical examinations but did not explicitly state the employer could choose the doctor.

The arbitrator held that, absent clear contractual or statutory authority, the employer does not have a general right to compel an employee to be examined by a doctor of the employer's choice when the employee objects, as such examinations are intrusive and implicate privacy rights.

The member, a secondary school teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in inappropriate conversations with a 17-year-old female student regarding her personal appearance and sexual relationship.

The member pled no contest to the facts and the Discipline Committee found him guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a 9-month retroactive suspension, completion of a course on student-teacher boundaries, and a psychiatric assessment proving fitness to teach before returning to the classroom.

A discipline hearing was convened regarding allegations against the member.

Based on submissions made by counsel, the Discipline Committee agreed to withdraw the Notice of Hearing and all charges against the member.

The member, a business studies teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct following criminal convictions for possession and production of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a two-year suspension of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, a reprimand, and a condition that any further criminal drug-related involvement would result in an immediate referral to the Discipline Committee.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding a member who had been criminally convicted of sexual touching of a minor.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse of a student.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the immediate revocation of his Certificates of Qualification and Registration.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union after it declined to advance his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The applicant was terminated for allegedly consuming and possessing marijuana at work, based on an undercover investigator's report.

The union investigated the allegations, interviewed witnesses, and considered the applicant's bald denial, which lacked any exculpatory explanation due to pending criminal charges.

The union concluded the grievance had poor prospects of success and posed a risk of leading to mandatory drug testing.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the union's investigation was thorough and its decision not to arbitrate was reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The member was charged with professional misconduct following a criminal conviction for assaulting a police officer with intent to resist lawful arrest, for which he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

The conduct occurred off-duty and did not involve students.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Acknowledgement and Undertaking, which will remain in effect for two years.

Provided the member complies with its terms, the professional misconduct charges will be withdrawn.

The applicant union brought unfair labour practice and contempt applications against the respondents, including a Minister of the Crown.

During the proceedings, the Vice-Chair disclosed that all Board Vice-Chairs had received confidential information regarding the selection process for the recent removal of four Vice-Chairs, an issue central to the applicant's allegations of political interference and lack of institutional independence.

The respondents moved for recusal.

The Board held that, given the high standard of natural justice applicable to its adjudicative functions, the disclosure of this highly relevant but undisclosed information raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The proceedings were stayed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit restricted to Adult Basic Education and Adult English as a Second Language (ABESL) instructors employed by the responding party.

The responding party argued the appropriate unit should include all Continuing Education Instructors.

The Board applied the Hospital for Sick Children test and concluded that a bargaining unit restricted to ABESL instructors was not appropriate due to concerns about undue fragmentation and classification-based bargaining.

The Board found that a unit including all continuing education instructors would be appropriate and directed the parties to meet with a Labour Relations Officer to complete the certification report.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the employer improperly assigned occasional teacher work to members of another union.

The employer and the responding union argued that the dispute involved interpreting the Education Act and should be left to the Minister of Education.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve work assignment disputes, even if the assignment might also violate another statute.

The Board directed the parties to file lists of tasks, witnesses, and evidence in preparation for a hearing.