Charlene Wiseman

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding kindergarten class sizes.

The arbitrator had interpreted O. Reg. 132/12 under the Education Act as requiring class size caps to be determined only on a specified date in September, allowing sizes to fluctuate thereafter.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation, based on the text, context, and purpose of the regulation, was internally coherent and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision confirming a work assignment to a competing union.

The Board had found that the factor of economy and efficiency favoured the competing union for scaffolding tending work.

The Divisional Court dismissed preliminary objections that the application was moot or premature.

On the merits, the Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable, as it was supported by evidence in the record, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its application for certification and a related employer declaration against SNC.

The Board had found that SNC was not the employer of two construction labourers working on an SNC job site.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's determination of the true employer using the York Condominium factors was reasonable and fell squarely within its expertise.

The Court also rejected the union's argument that the Board breached natural justice by suggesting another entity might be the employer, noting the only material issue was whether SNC was the employer.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The College determined there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations because key witnesses could not be located, making a finding of professional misconduct unlikely.

The member's counsel consented to the motion.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding the withdrawal reasonable, appropriate, and in the public interest.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing human rights complaints regarding mandatory retirement for firefighters.

The Commission argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and its own policy on disability and the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Commission was attempting to re-litigate issues already fully argued and that there was no established jurisprudence on the specific issues decided.

The Tribunal also noted that the Commission had not raised its policy during the original hearing.

The complainant, a former District Chief in the London Fire Department, alleged that the mandatory retirement age of 60 for suppression firefighters, negotiated in the collective agreement, constituted age discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents conceded prima facie discrimination but argued the provision was a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) due to the increased risk of cardiac events with age.

The Tribunal applied the Meiorin test and found that the respondents had justified the standard.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the risk of cardiac events for firefighters is significant and increases with age, and that there is currently no individualized risk analysis for firefighters that is more accurate than using age alone.

The Tribunal also gave weight to the fact that the provision was negotiated by the union and employer to address health and safety concerns while providing an unreduced pension at age 60.

The complaint was dismissed.

The appellant was wrongfully convicted of robbery after a police investigation.

He was later acquitted and sued the police for negligent investigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the tort of negligent investigation, holding that police owe a duty of care to suspects under investigation.

However, applying the standard of a reasonable police officer in similar circumstances, the Court found that the police conduct in this case, while flawed, did not breach the standard of care.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision dismissing a grievance concerning a teacher's teaching assignment upon her return from pregnancy leave.

The teacher, who previously taught Senior French, was assigned to teach Senior Science upon her return.

The arbitration board found no violation of the reinstatement or non-reprisal provisions of the Employment Standards Act, concluding that her 'position' was as a teacher at the school, not a specific subject assignment.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitration board's decision, finding it was reasonable given the annual nature of teaching assignments and the principal's statutory authority.

In supplementary reasons, the Divisional Court amended its previous ruling on costs at the request of the respondents.

The court deleted the original paragraph regarding costs and substituted a new paragraph directing all counsel to address the court in writing on whether costs should be assessed or fixed, and if fixed, the quantum of such costs.

The applicants had filed a bill of costs seeking partial indemnity costs of $308,926.84.

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 applicants, who were social assistance recipients, brought a Charter challenge against a 'lifetime ban' on benefits imposed after convictions related to their benefits.

Before the hearing, a newly elected government repealed the regulations, and the parties settled all issues except costs.

The applicants sought their costs on a public interest basis.

The Divisional Court (majority) awarded the applicants partial indemnity costs of $308,926.84, finding that the litigation was meritorious, the issues were of public importance, and the applicants could not have proceeded without pro bono counsel.

A dissenting judge would have made no order as to costs.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding allegations that the member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain professional standards, issuing false statements, and engaging in disgraceful conduct.

The member did not attend but entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the College.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted the agreement, which required the member to undergo a psychological assessment, comply with any recommended treatment, and receive a reprimand.

The union and the employer both sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision that found the employer committed unfair labour practices during a union organizing campaign.

The employer challenged the Board's refusal to bifurcate the hearing, its decision to allow the union to argue damages, and several specific performance orders, including compulsory union meetings and providing employee contact information.

The union sought to expand the scope of damages, recover legal costs, and adjust the timeline for a fresh representation vote.

The Board dismissed all reconsideration requests, finding no important issues of Board policy or obvious errors that warranted varying the original orders, and directed the employer to immediately provide the union with the employees' home addresses and telephone numbers.