Larry G. Culver

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an arbitrator's award that required the employer to reimburse employees for the Ontario Health Premium under the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the standard of review for the arbitrator's decision is patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation that the Ontario Health Premium was reasonably and materially similar to the former OHIP premium was not patently unreasonable, and rejected the argument that arbitral inconsistency warrants judicial intervention.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

The appellants appealed a decision allowing the respondent to pursue claims for disability benefits under insurance contracts.

In a prior tort action regarding a motor vehicle accident, the respondent's damages for lost income were reduced for failure to mitigate.

The appellants argued the present actions were barred by issue estoppel or abuse of process.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the prior tort action involved a factual finding on ability to work for assessing damages, whereas the present cases involved the legal interpretation of disability under the insurance policies and the Insurance Act.