John-Paul Alexandrowicz

The applicant, a former NHL referee, brought a motion to vary an order that quashed his affidavit filed in support of an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion in part, finding that the motions judge erred in striking portions of the affidavit that went to an essential finding of fact regarding anti-union animus and alleged denials of procedural fairness.

The court reinstated specific paragraphs of the affidavit while upholding the exclusion of the remainder.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.

At the hearing, the applicant attempted to raise new arguments and issues that were not raised before the arbitrator.

Citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Alberta Teachers' Association, the Divisional Court refused to consider the new issues, noting the prejudice to the respondent and the loss of the specialized tribunal's views.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to remit the matter back to the arbitrator without consent, which the respondent refused.

The court offered the applicant the option to withdraw the application without a determination on the merits.

On consent, the application was withdrawn, and the applicant was ordered to pay $3,500 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his claim that he was terminated for union activity.

On the judicial review application, the applicant filed a 32-page affidavit.

The respondent NHL brought a motion to strike the affidavit.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that affidavit evidence on judicial review is only admissible to show a complete absence of evidence on an essential point or a breach of natural justice.

The court found the applicant was improperly attempting to re-weigh the evidence before the Board.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

After the first day of the hearing, the applicant's counsel withdrew.

The applicant failed to file a required written statement of evidence and failed to appear at the continued hearing dates.

Despite attempts by the Tribunal to contact the applicant and obtain a written explanation for his absence, no adequate explanation was provided.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate by the NHL, the Tribunal ruled on evidentiary and production issues.

The Tribunal excluded the proposed testimony of two former officials regarding the NHL's general culture around injury reporting, finding it irrelevant, tantamount to character evidence, and not qualifying as similar fact evidence.

The Tribunal permitted another witness to testify by teleconference.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for broad document production concerning other officials' injuries, grievances, and promotions, concluding the documents were not relevant to the specific allegations of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and association.

On the first day of the hearing, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The Tribunal ordered the exclusion of non-party witnesses but denied requests to exclude children from the hearing room and to impose a publication ban regarding prior settlement minutes.

The Tribunal also removed the individual respondents from the proceeding, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered both parties to produce requested documents, including the applicant's financial and medical records, and the respondents' statistical information and exclusion letters.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the human rights application on a preliminary basis, arguing it was untimely, outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, an abuse of process, and failed to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on family status and association with persons identified by a prohibited ground (students with anaphylaxis).

The Tribunal dismissed the request to dismiss the application entirely, finding it was timely, within jurisdiction, not an abuse of process, and raised allegations sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by association.

However, the Tribunal struck the ground of 'family status' as the allegations did not relate to a parent and child relationship.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that section 54 of the Labour Relations Act applies to all collective agreements in Ontario.

The arbitrator had not yet decided the ultimate question of whether mandatory retirement prior to amendments to the Human Rights Code was unlawful.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, emphasizing that courts should not entertain applications prior to the completion of proceedings to avoid fragmented proceedings and unnecessary delay.

The arbitrator must rule on all issues before judicial review is appropriate.

The Union brought a motion to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court, who had dismissed the Union's motion to strike an affidavit filed by the City of Hamilton on an application for judicial review.

The underlying judicial review challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's certification of the Union.

The Divisional Court panel allowed the motion in part, holding that while affidavit evidence regarding notice was admissible to establish a denial of natural justice, the remaining paragraphs containing evidence not before the Board must be struck out in accordance with the Keeprite principle.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an arbitration board's ruling.

The arbitration board had concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the collective agreement to award aggravated or punitive damages for an unjust dismissal grievance.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was correctness and that the board erred.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the pragmatic and functional approach dictated a standard of patent unreasonableness due to strong privative clauses and the board's expertise in interpreting collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal concluded the board's decision was not patently unreasonable and restored its ruling.

A probationary employee was discharged shortly after returning from maternity leave and filed a grievance alleging discrimination based on family status.

The collective agreement precluded probationary employees from grieving a discharge, but the board of arbitration found it had jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to apply the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court quashed this decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Employment Standards Act prohibits dismissing an employee for taking pregnancy leave and makes this prohibition enforceable under the collective agreement, prevailing over any conflicting terms.

The objecting employees and the employer challenged the validity of a ratification vote conducted by the union.

The ballot presented a choice between accepting the employer's offer or rejecting it and authorizing a strike.

The applicants argued that this compound ballot violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to provide a clear 'yes' or 'no' choice on ratification alone.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the challenge, holding that the Act does not mandate a simple 'yes' or 'no' ballot and that the combined ratification/strike ballot is a realistic collective bargaining choice that does not prevent employees from expressing their true wishes.