James L. McDonald

The applicant university sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted a former employee sick leave benefits for a period after his fixed-term employment contract had expired.

The arbitrator found that the employee's entitlement to the benefits had vested while he was still employed, bridging the gap to his long-term disability benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was transparent, rational, and justified.

In a grievance arbitration concerning an employee who was surplussed following organizational changes, the Association requested further document disclosure after the Employer's first witness testified.

The Employer argued the documents were not arguably relevant, contending the issue was narrowly about whether the grievor was properly matched.

The Association argued the entire reorganization process was suspect as the grievor was the only employee surplussed.

The Vice-Chair found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered their disclosure.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint against his employer and union to the Human Rights Tribunal.

He alleged a denial of natural justice because the Commission failed to interview certain witnesses and consider evidence of systemic discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the un-interviewed witnesses lacked direct knowledge, and holding that the Commission's conclusion of insufficient evidence of discrimination was reasonable given the applicant's objective test scores.

In a grievance concerning a job competition, the parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine a preliminary issue regarding the appropriate standard for assessing applicants.

The collective agreement provided a preference for AMAPCEO unit applicants where qualifications and ability were relatively equal.

The successful applicant, originally from outside the unit, acquired AMAPCEO unit status after the posting closed but before the final selection was made.

The Board held that an applicant's status must be determined as of the date the job posting closes, not the date of final selection, to ensure certainty and prevent potential manipulation of the process.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled grievance arbitration hearing regarding her ten-day suspension and alleged breach of a settlement agreement.

Despite being directed to attend or provide medical justification for her absence, she did not appear or communicate with her union representative.

The employer requested the complaint be dismissed and withdrew its own allegations.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the dispute due to the complainant's failure to participate.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing because the complainant failed to attend, citing a medical leave but providing no medical documentation.

The employer opposed the adjournment, noting a history of delays and the complainant's lack of respect for the process, but agreed in the alternative to a peremptory adjournment.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment on a peremptory basis, directing the complainant to attend the next scheduled hearing date or provide sufficient medical justification for her absence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring the applicant and Metro Waste Paper Recovery Inc. to be related employers under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued the Board erred by applying s. 1(4) without first determining the 'true' employer and by exercising its discretion without identifying labour relations mischief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, fact-driven, and within its specialized expertise.

The Board properly identified that a single employer declaration would undermine collective bargaining rights and create an unviable bargaining structure.

The Association requested an order compelling the Employer to disclose documents related to the re-organization that led to the grievor's surplussing.

The Employer generally did not take issue with the request.

The Vice-Chair ordered the Employer to provide the requested information and established a schedule for disclosure.

The Association brought a motion to bifurcate the proceedings arising from a job competition grievance.

The Association sought to have two issues determined separately: whether the qualified complainant should have been awarded one of the unfilled permanent positions, and whether the competition was fundamentally flawed for failing to consider her previous experience.

The Employer opposed the motion, arguing it would cause substantial prejudice and that the entire selection process needed to be examined.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion in part, allowing bifurcation only for the first issue, as it involved a legal/interpretive question that could likely be argued on undisputed facts without requiring a full inquiry into the selection process.

The applicant, a 65-year-old firefighter, was required to retire from his operational position due to mandatory retirement provisions.

He was re-assigned to a non-operational position at a lower base rate of pay, though he received a top-up to his previous base salary for 30 months.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, arguing his top-up should be based on the higher Acting District Chief rate he frequently earned prior to retirement, rather than his base Captain rate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to maintain a worker's previous higher rate of pay when accommodated in a lower-paying position, and that the employer's voluntary top-up based on his permanent classification was not discriminatory.

The complainant, a former fixed-term unclassified contract employee, alleged the employer conducted an unfair job competition.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of the dispute, arguing that as a former employee, the complainant could not advance a grievance regarding the competition.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the collective agreement explicitly granted former employees the right to apply for restricted competitions for 24 months after layoff.

The Board concluded this negotiated benefit created a substantive right enforceable through the grievance arbitration procedure.

The parties reached a mutually acceptable settlement regarding allegations that the complainant was subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy.

The Employer acknowledged the discriminatory treatment and took steps to remedy the situation.

The Grievance Settlement Board terminated the proceedings.

In an interim decision regarding the discharge of three union members, the Association objected to the admissibility of reports and witness statements prepared by a workplace investigator, arguing they constituted hearsay.

The Association requested that if admitted, the employer be directed to call the interviewed witnesses before the investigator to avoid prejudice.

The Grievance Settlement Board admitted the reports, noting the investigator would be called as a witness and subject to cross-examination.

The Board declined to direct the employer's order of witnesses, stating that any hearsay concerns regarding non-testifying witnesses could be addressed through redaction later in the proceeding.

The appellant appealed a finding of civil contempt and a 75-day sentence for failing to deliver jewellery and artwork to the respondent pursuant to a court order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding, noting the motion judge implicitly rejected the appellant's claim that he did not possess the items.

However, the Court varied the sentence, setting aside the 30-day term for the jewellery due to lack of clarity on the extent of the breach, and reducing the 45-day term for the artwork to 15 days, adding a coercive clause allowing the appellant to avoid or shorten the sentence by delivering the specified items.

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 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.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate by his employer.

The employer sought to defer the application pending the outcome of concurrent grievance arbitration proceedings.

The union, which had carriage of the grievances, indicated it would not advance the human rights claims at arbitration.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that because the human rights issues would not be adjudicated in the grievance process, deferral was not appropriate.

The union appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an arbitrator's award regarding holiday pay for part-time employees.

The arbitrator had found the collective agreement ambiguous and used extrinsic evidence to rule in the union's favour.

The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator's decision was subject to a reasonableness standard of review.

Finding that the arbitrator's conclusion on ambiguity and his use of extrinsic evidence were reasonable, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the arbitrator's award.

The applicant, a university professor, filed a human rights application alleging that his union and its representatives discriminated against him on the basis of ancestry and place of origin by failing to pursue grievances against his employer.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the application, even as amended, did not set out a factual basis that could give rise to a finding that the union represented the applicant differently based on his ancestry or place of origin, or that the union became a party to the employer's alleged discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by awarding a Health Care Coordinator position to an external candidate instead of the grievor, an internal candidate.

The arbitrator found the selection process was fundamentally flawed because the employer relied almost exclusively on interview and test scores, failing to consider the grievor's ten years of actual experience in the same position or to check her references.

The arbitrator declared the competition results null and void and ordered a new competition restricted to the grievor and the successful candidate.