C. Michael Mitchell

The union filed grievances claiming that two newly created positions fell within its bargaining unit.

The employer brought a motion to defer the grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), arguing that the matter was a jurisdictional dispute involving another union (AMAPCEO) and that an application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act had already been filed.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to defer, finding that the OLRB was the more appropriate forum to resolve jurisdictional disputes and avoid parallel proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard multiple appeals from New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec regarding the constitutional requirement for independent judicial compensation commissions.

The Court clarified the principles from the Provincial Judges Reference, establishing a three-stage analysis for determining whether a government's response to a commission's recommendations meets the standard of rationality.

The Court upheld the government responses in New Brunswick and Ontario, found the Alberta government's response partially irrational but globally effective, and struck down the Quebec government's response for failing to address the committee's core recommendations.

The Government of Ontario applied for judicial review of the Fifth Triennial Report of the Provincial Judges Remuneration Commission, which recommended a 21% salary increase for provincial judges.

The Ontario Conference of Judges brought a separate application for an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Government to implement the recommendations.

The Divisional Court held that while the Commission's recommendations are subject to judicial review on a standard of patent unreasonableness, the Government's application must be dismissed due to its failure to exhaust internal reconsideration remedies under the Framework Agreement and its excessive delay in bringing the application.

The court granted the Ontario Conference of Judges' application and ordered the Government to implement the recommendations retroactively.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its judicial review application because the respondent government failed to communicate its position until delivering its factum just days before the hearing.

The government also filed its own judicial review application at the last minute without a proper record.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment and awarded costs to the applicant on a complete indemnity basis, finding the delay was entirely the fault of the government's cavalier approach.

The appellants, representing Ontario provincial court judges, appealed the dismissal of their application for judicial review of the provincial government's decision to reject the recommendations of the Fourth Triennial Provincial Judges' Remuneration Commission regarding judicial pensions.

The government had accepted binding salary recommendations but rejected the non-binding pension enhancements, citing fiscal restraint and the fact that the 28% salary increase already significantly increased pension values.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the government's post-report retention of an actuarial firm to cost the proposals was appropriate, and that the government's reasons for rejecting the pension recommendations met the 'simple rationality' standard established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the P.E.I. Reference.

The applicants sought an interim order restraining the Minister of Health from approving plans for the involvement of for-profit corporations in the design or operation of two hospitals, pending the adjournment of their application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the projects would breach the Public Hospitals Act, and failed to show irreparable harm if the interim order was not granted.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay.

The Divisional Court acknowledged substantial delay but found the applicants' unchallenged explanations supported permitting the matter to continue.

The court noted the respondent had not demonstrated prejudice and had taken no prior steps to address the delay.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The grievors, Group Managers (AM20) in the Ministry of Finance, filed a grievance alleging that the employer's reorganization of their duties and the creation of a new AM21 position constituted bad faith and a violation of their working conditions.

The reorganization was implemented to address salary compression issues arising from a new collective agreement for senior auditors.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was a classification matter outside the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board heard evidence and concluded that while the reorganization may have been a poor administrative decision, there was no clear evidence of bad faith, discrimination, arbitrariness, or a breach of the Public Service Act.

Consequently, the Board declined jurisdiction and dismissed the grievance.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested an adjournment to review requested documents for privilege and confidentiality before production.

The Grievor objected.

The Board granted the adjournment but subsequently ordered the Employer to produce all non-privileged documents forthwith and to provide reasons for any documents withheld.

The Board scheduled a hearing to address arguments on privilege for the withheld documents.

The union filed a complaint alleging the university violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate the union's 9-point programme regarding the divestment of the Royal Conservatory of Music, refusing to disclose related information, and refusing to continue negotiations pending the outcome of the complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the university's refusal to discuss the 9-point programme and its refusal to continue negotiations pending the complaint violated the duty to bargain in good faith.

However, the Board found no violation regarding the refusal to disclose information or alleged delay.

The Board directed the university to bargain in good faith and table a full package of proposals.