Janet Mary Callfas

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement governing shift assignments for transit operators.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's method of assigning work on the spare board violated the agreement, interpreting provisions related to vacant shifts and wind down operators.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application.

The court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, including her reliance on past practice to resolve an ambiguity, to be defensible and reasonable.

The City of Hamilton sought judicial review of two arbitration awards regarding bus driver scheduling and seniority.

The union brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review, alleging bad faith, undue delay, and abuse of process.

The City brought a cross-motion to stay the arbitrator's decisions pending the judicial review.

A single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed both motions, finding that the issues, including the admissibility of affidavit evidence, were better left to be determined by the full panel of the Divisional Court scheduled to hear the application.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a paragraph of the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim alleging intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from a false accusation of theft in the employment context.

The defendant argued the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action under the elements established by the Court of Appeal for the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court held that, at the pleadings stage, the alleged factual matrix—including a false accusation of criminal conduct against a long‑term employee—could potentially satisfy the requirement of flagrant or outrageous conduct calculated to cause harm resulting in a visible and provable illness.

Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the court found it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The motion to strike was therefore dismissed.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment, arguing the respondent failed to mitigate his damages by refusing an oral offer of re-employment and missing a job interview.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent's request for a written offer and legal advice was reasonable, and his overall mitigation efforts were diligent.

The court also declined to interfere with the 22-month notice period and the trial costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.