5 total
Judicial review of arbitrator's jurisdictional ruling dismissed as premature because arbitrability of specific grievances remained undecided.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision confirming his jurisdiction over certain conductor-only grievances.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the arbitrator had only determined he remained seized of the process to decide the scope of his authority, but had not yet ruled on whether the specific lead grievances were arbitrable.
The court noted that any challenge to the arbitrator's general jurisdiction should have been brought after his initial 2018 interlocutory order.
Judicial review of arbitrator's award limiting employer's disclosure of employee medical information dismissed as reasonable.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's supplemental award regarding a policy grievance over the disclosure of employee medical information.
The arbitrator had ruled that the employer's policy, which allowed disclosure of medical information beyond functional limitations without consent, was of no force and effect.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably concluded he had jurisdiction to address the policy and reasonably applied established arbitral principles limiting the disclosure of employee health records to functional abilities for accommodation purposes.
Tribunal defers human rights application pending union grievance; deferral power does not violate Charter section 7.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging systemic and individual discrimination by her employer.
The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration process.
The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the Tribunal's deferral power under section 45 of the Human Rights Code violates section 7 of the Charter because it transfers control of human rights claims from individuals to unions.
The Tribunal held that section 7 is not engaged, as deferral is a procedural step that does not restrict fundamental personal choices.
The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid duplication of proceedings.
Human rights application against union dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case of reprisal.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its chief steward engaged in a reprisal against her by failing to support her workplace harassment claims after she filed a separate human rights application against her employer.
The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal, as there was no reasonable basis to infer that the union's alleged inaction was intended to retaliate against her for filing an application against her employer.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights applications dismissed as their substance was resolved in a prior grievance settlement.
The applicant filed human rights complaints against his employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his workplace accommodation and access to training for a different position.
The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance settlement.
The Tribunal found that the grievance settlement explicitly acknowledged the applicant was being accommodated in his current position, thereby resolving the substance of the human rights applications.
The applications were dismissed.
