Ken Stuebing

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.

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.