Jo-Anne Pickel

The appellants, including Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) and two unions, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that disallowed $145 million of OPG's forecast nuclear compensation costs for the 2011-2012 test period.

The appellants argued the OEB was required to presume the collective agreements were prudent when entered into and could not use hindsight to assess their reasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the OEB was not restricted to a retrospective prudence review for forecast costs and was entitled to consider current market comparators to ensure rates were just and reasonable for consumers.

The court also found the OEB's reasons were adequate and its decision did not violate section 2(d) of the Charter.

The respondent university requested an order to change the hearing venue from Windsor to Toronto and to bifurcate the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the venue change, ordering the initial hearing dates to proceed in Windsor.

The Tribunal granted the request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedial phases, noting the extensive remedies sought.

The Tribunal also granted the request to bifurcate the evidence, ordering that evidence concerning the decanal search be heard prior to evidence of systemic discrimination.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the applicant's standing to bring a complaint of systemic discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and sex during a university hiring process for a Dean position.

The individual respondent brought a request to be removed as a party, arguing the university was vicariously liable for his conduct.

Three organizations also brought requests to intervene.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to remove the individual respondent, finding his conduct was a central issue in the case.

The Tribunal also denied all three requests to intervene, finding the proposed intervenors failed to demonstrate a significant interest or that they would provide assistance not otherwise provided by the parties.

The respondents brought a motion to remove the individual respondents from the application and to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to keep them as the corporate respondent was liable for their conduct.

The Tribunal also found that allegations overlapping with a previous Commission complaint were barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to dismiss the application for untimeliness, finding it was filed within one year of the last incident in a series.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration because it was filed beyond the 30-day deadline without explanation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that even if timely, the request did not meet the criteria under Rule 26, as the applicant merely sought to re-argue her case and presented no new determinative facts or evidence.

The applicant, a member of the ACTRA Toronto Extras Caucus, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, creed, and marital status, as well as reprisal, following her removal from the Caucus.

The Tribunal found that the incidents complained of were the result of interpersonal conflicts and the applicant's misinterpretation of comments and non-verbal cues, rather than discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's removal from the Caucus was due to her rigid adherence to formality and personality conflicts, not a reprisal for raising human rights concerns.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, Hydro One Inc., appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Financial Services Tribunal order for a partial wind-up of its pension plan under s. 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.

Following a corporate merger, the employment of 73 Management Compensation Plan (MCP) employees was terminated.

The Tribunal used a 'subset analysis' to determine that a 'significant number' of plan members had been terminated, comparing the number of terminated MCP employees to the total number of active MCP plan members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 69(1)(d) permits a subset analysis in appropriate circumstances and that the Tribunal's application of this analysis was reasonable given that the merger intentionally targeted senior employees nearing retirement.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of two interest arbitration awards that ordered retroactive wage increases for employees who were no longer actively employed.

The hospital argued that retroactivity was not a matter in dispute between the parties and that the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction and denied procedural fairness by deciding the issue without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that the board's decision was unreasonable because it failed to explain why it was necessary to deal with retroactivity when the parties had agreed it was not in dispute.

The Court also found a denial of procedural fairness and set aside the portion of the awards dealing with retroactivity.

The applicant police officers sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering the production of their personnel files in relation to a human rights complaint.

After the police service confirmed no responsive records existed, the respondents argued the application was moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no live controversy remained.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting that recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence regarding police disciplinary records should be applied in a genuine adversarial context.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a grievance over the workload of Special Education Resource Teachers (SERTs).

The union grieved that the board failed to provide course credit for monitoring activities.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance but issued a declaration that the board violated the collective agreement by assigning 'indirect monitoring' to be done during planning and preparation time.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the declaration, finding that the arbitrator's conclusion was unreasonable, not sought by either party, and contrary to the historical mutual understanding of the teaching process.

Canada Post sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision to change the cut-off date for calculating damages in a prior award, arguing the arbitrator was functus officio.

The arbitrator had initially set the date without hearing submissions, leading to a mistaken belief of facts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's initial failure to allow submissions amounted to a denial of natural justice.

Therefore, the arbitrator had the power and duty to revisit the issue and correct the error, falling within a recognized exception to the functus officio doctrine.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of an order by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Board of Inquiry requiring her to submit to an extensive medical examination to assess her capacity to practice.

The Board ordered the examination after receiving allegations of narcotic administration discrepancies but provided no reasons for its decision.

The Divisional Court quashed the order, holding that the highly intrusive nature of the examination and the severe consequences of non-compliance triggered a high duty of procedural fairness under the Baker factors, which included a duty to provide reasons demonstrating reasonable and probable grounds for the order.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's interim award ordering it to make ex gratia payments to a grieving employee whose sick leave benefits had been terminated.

The Divisional Court held that while the arbitrator's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act as granting jurisdiction for the interim award was unreasonable, his alternative reliance on the collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

The interim award was upheld and the application for judicial review was largely dismissed.