Cynthia Petersen

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint against his union without a full hearing.

The applicant alleged the union failed to give him adequate notice of a grievance that ultimately displaced him from his permanent custodian position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by deciding the matter on written submissions, and that its conclusion that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith was reasonable.

The applicant commenced a Charter challenge against an Ontario regulation that terminated OHIP funding for sex reassignment surgery.

After years of complex litigation and shortly before the hearing on the merits, the government repealed the impugned regulation, rendering the application moot.

The applicant sought her costs thrown away.

The court held that the applicant was substantially successful in achieving her goal through the policy change and awarded her partial indemnity costs fixed at $200,000, noting the importance of not penalizing pro bono counsel in public interest litigation.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that required it to pay educational assistants for accompanying special needs students on an overnight camping trip.

The school board argued that the employees volunteered and were not 'required' to attend under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of 'required' as 'needed' was reasonable, justified, and fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes.

The appellant teachers' federation appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitration award.

The grievance concerned a teacher returning from pregnancy leave who was assigned to teach a different subject than she taught before her leave.

The arbitration board held that under s. 43(1) of the Employment Standards Act, the teacher's 'position' meant a teaching position at the same school in a subject for which she was qualified, not necessarily the exact same subject.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's finding that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness, and that the arbitration board's interpretation was reasonable given the principal's statutory power to assign classes under the Education Act.

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.