4 total
Judicial review dismissed; arbitrator reasonably interpreted collective agreement to include rental cars as employer equipment.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that required it to pay an employee his hourly wage for time spent commuting between an out-of-town hotel and a job site in a rental car provided by the employer.
The arbitrator found that the rental car constituted the 'Employer's equipment' under the collective agreement.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's practical, common-sense interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.
Judicial review dismissed; provincial labour relations law applies to construction contractor on federal nuclear waste project.
The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting union certification for employees working on a federal nuclear waste remediation project.
The applicant argued that its labour relations were subject to federal jurisdiction because the project involved nuclear substances.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was a large construction company performing a temporary contract and was not a federal undertaking itself, nor was it sufficiently integrated into the federal undertaking to trigger derivative federal jurisdiction.
A dissenting judge would have found derivative federal jurisdiction based on the federal regulatory regime governing nuclear substances.
Appeal from attempted murder conviction and 10-year sentence dismissed; aggravated assault conviction stayed under Kienapple.
The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder and aggravated assault, and his 10-year sentence, following a stabbing incident.
He argued the trial judge erred regarding evidence of his right to silence, prior consistent statements, and post-offence conduct.
The Court of Appeal found that while the Crown made minor errors regarding the right to silence and prior statements, they caused no substantial prejudice and the curative proviso applied.
The court stayed the aggravated assault conviction under the Kienapple principle but otherwise dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals.
Human rights applications dismissed as out of time with no reasonable explanation for delay.
The applicant filed human rights applications against her former employer and union alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, nearly three years after her termination and over a year after the conclusion of related arbitration and OLRB proceedings.
The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the applications.
The Tribunal found that the applications were filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit under section 34(2), finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and substantial prejudice to the respondents.
The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
