7 total
Wrongful dismissal appeal dismissed; termination for cause upheld due to deliberate safety violations.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.
He had been terminated for cause after bypassing a safety device on a machine, following a history of progressive discipline for safety violations.
On appeal, he argued the trial judge relied on unpleaded grounds, made palpable and overriding factual errors, and failed to resolve evidentiary conflicts.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors and concluding that the trial judge's findings on the appellant's misconduct were well-supported by the evidence.
Motion to review order quashing judicial review dismissed; employee lacked standing to challenge arbitration award.
The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing his application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding his termination.
The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because his union failed to provide a Somali interpreter at the arbitration hearing, which he claimed fell under the deficient representation exception to the rule against individual standing.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the evidence did not support the need for an interpreter and noting the applicant's proper remedy was before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Motion to quash judicial review granted as employee lacked standing to challenge arbitration award independently.
The applicant employee sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed his grievance regarding his termination for cause.
The respondent union and employer brought a motion to quash the application on the basis that the employee lacked standing.
The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the union was the exclusive bargaining agent and the employee had no independent right to seek judicial review.
The court rejected the employee's argument that he was denied natural justice due to the lack of an interpreter at the arbitration, noting that he was fluent in English and that any complaint regarding the union's representation should have been brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board as a breach of the duty of fair representation.
Plaintiff awarded substantial indemnity costs after beating Rule 49 offer.
Following a trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment exceeding $543,000, the court issued supplementary reasons on costs after learning that the plaintiff had previously delivered a formal offer to settle under Rule 49.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The judgment obtained was more favourable than the terms of the offer.
Applying Rule 49 cost consequences, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer to the date of judgment.
The adjustment increased the plaintiff’s cost entitlement.
The total costs award was amended accordingly.
Judicial review of OLRB work assignment decision dismissed; no breach of procedural fairness found.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the assignment of certain I-beam installation work to a rival union.
The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider twenty drawings submitted with its reply.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had considered the drawings and its decision was not patently unreasonable.
Costs awarded to successful respondents in judicial review application despite public interest arguments.
Following an unsuccessful application for judicial review regarding mill closures, the applicants argued that no costs should be awarded due to the public interest nature of the litigation.
The court rejected this argument, noting the applicants had a personal and pecuniary interest in the outcome.
The court awarded costs to the successful respondents, fixing the Ministry's costs at $22,368.68 and reducing Domtar's claimed costs to $12,000 to account for duplication of work among the respondents.
Application for mandamus dismissed; sawmill restructuring and wood redirection did not require Plan amendments.
The applicants sought judicial review and an order of mandamus to compel the Minister of Natural Resources to require public consultation and amendments to Forest Management Plans before two forestry companies could restructure their operations, close certain sawmills, and redirect wood supply.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Plans regulate forest operations and sustainability, not the processing of harvested wood at specific mills.
As the restructuring did not change the forest operations or impact sustainability, no Plan amendments or public consultations were required under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.
