Balraj Dosanjh

The appellants, a postal workers' union and its representatives, sought a declaration that federal back-to-work legislation ending rotating strikes in 2018 unjustifiably limited their members' freedom of association under s. 2(d) and freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The application judge dismissed the application as moot because the legislation was spent and declined to exercise discretion to decide on the merits under the Borowski criteria.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed the application was moot and deferred to the discretionary decision not to hear it on the merits.

In the alternative, the court found the legislation limited s. 2(d) rights but was justified under s. 1, and that neither the Prime Minister's public statement nor the Act limited s. 2(b) rights.

Appeal dismissed.

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum of costs sought by an intervenor, Canada Post Corporation (CPC), following the unsuccessful constitutional challenge by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) against back-to-work legislation.

While CUPW settled costs with the Attorney General, CPC sought an additional $492,258.13.

The court found CPC's request extraordinarily high for an intervenor, noting the Attorney General was the lead responding party.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced CPC's costs to an all-inclusive amount of $150,000.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) challenged the constitutionality of the Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act (PSRCA), SC 2018, c 25, arguing it infringed freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The legislation ended a series of rotating strikes and imposed a mediation-arbitration process.

The court found the application moot because the PSRCA was spent legislation, having led to new collective agreements, and there was no live controversy or suitable remedy.

However, in obiter, the court stated that if the matter were not moot, the PSRCA would infringe s. 2(d) but would be justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as it constituted a minimal impairment due to its fair and neutral dispute resolution mechanism, unlike previous unconstitutional back-to-work legislation.

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for submitting false claims to her employer's group benefit plan for non-medical products.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by contravening standards of practice, misappropriating property, falsifying records, and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a 3-month suspension, and terms and conditions including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification.

The member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims to her employer's group benefit plan between 2014 and 2016.

The member received reimbursement for non-medical products and split proceeds of false invoices with a colleague who orchestrated the scheme.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms and conditions including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

Several public sector unions filed grievances against the Crown in Right of Ontario, arguing that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation should be recognized as a paid holiday under their respective collective agreements.

The collective agreements provided that employees were entitled to any special holiday 'proclaimed by the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor'.

The employer argued that the holiday was created by Royal Assent to a statute, rather than by an executive proclamation, and therefore did not fall within the collective agreement language.

The arbitrator rejected the employer's argument, finding that the parties intended to include any new holiday established by the federal or provincial government, and that Royal Assent by written declaration constituted a proclamation.

The grievances were upheld.

In a grievance arbitration concerning whether the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is a paid holiday under various collective agreements, the employer sought to introduce evidence regarding its consultations with Indigenous partners and its reasons for treating the day as one of learning and reflection rather than a paid holiday.

The unions objected to the admission of this evidence.

The arbitrator ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that it was irrelevant to the mutual intention of the parties at the time the collective agreements were negotiated and would cause unnecessary delay and prejudice.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The Society of United Professionals appealed a Divisional Court decision affirming the Ontario Labour Relations Board's (OLRB) rulings regarding New Horizon System Solutions' refusal to disclose a Master Services Agreement (MSA).

The Society alleged violations of ss. 17 (duty to bargain in good faith) and 70 (interference with union representation) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable, concluding that the MSA was not necessary for the Society to carry out its representational duties under s. 70 and that the s. 17 application was premature when initially brought.

The court also found the OLRB's partial disclosure order under s. 17 and its reliance on counsel's representation regarding a specific MSA article to be reasonable.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee terminated for sexual harassment and dishonesty during the investigation.

The arbitrator had substituted the dismissal with a 30-day suspension and a condition that any future sexual harassment would result in automatic termination, binding any future arbitrator to only determine if harassment occurred.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's finding that termination was not the only appropriate penalty, as it was based on reasonable factual findings.

However, the Court found the penalty unreasonable because the arbitrator lacked statutory authority under the Labour Relations Act to bind future arbitrators.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the arbitrator to determine the appropriate penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision granting a union grievance regarding overtime pay for truck drivers.

The arbitrator found the employer did not qualify for the 60-hour overtime threshold under the highway transport exemption in O. Reg. 285/01 because it did not hold a valid CVOR under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Divisional Court held this interpretation was unreasonable, as the Regulation only required an operating licence under the repealed Truck Transportation Act and did not incorporate Highway Traffic Act requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the grievance dismissed.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to participate in the College's Quality Assurance program after being randomly selected.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and mandatory participation in the next Quality Assurance cycle.

The applicant union sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding the employer's refusal to disclose a commercial Master Services Agreement (MSA) with a third party.

The union alleged the refusal violated the employer's duty to not interfere with union representation and the duty to bargain in good faith under the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions to deny full disclosure, find the initial bad faith bargaining complaint premature, and later order only partial disclosure based on specific bargaining concessions, were all reasonable and consistent with established labour jurisprudence.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming application to be heard by video conference.

The court provided instructions on the use of ZOOM, electronic document filing via a password-protected dropbox, formatting of factums with hyperlinks, and the preparation of electronic compendiums.