D. Wray

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision substituting a 30-day suspension for the discharge of a municipal standards officer.

The officer had been terminated for alleged anti-Black racism and harassment after an incident involving two Black women in a closed park.

The City argued the arbitrator erred by requiring proof of racial motivation for a finding of discrimination and by failing to transparently treat the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably responded to the City's specific allegations that the officer had singled out the complainants, and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with the arbitrator's factual findings.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the constitutionality of Bill 66, which amended the Labour Relations Act to deem municipalities as non-construction employers.

The union argued this violated section 2(d) of the Charter by nullifying their collective agreements and subcontracting protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly applied binding precedent and that the amendments did not substantially interfere with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant employer in support of an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The affidavit summarized evidence and proceedings from the arbitration hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the affidavit did not fall within the recognized exceptions for supplementing the record on judicial review, as it was an attempt to reframe the evidence before the arbitrator.

The affidavit was struck with leave to file a reconstituted version containing only exhibits and closing submissions.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a competing union to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondent construction company.

The Board had determined that the applicant's existing collective agreement did not cover carpenters and carpenters' apprentices, effectively ending the applicant's intervention in the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and correct based on the plain meaning of the agreement's recognition and jurisdiction clauses.

In CCAA proceedings, the court issued a supplementary costs endorsement following an earlier costs decision.

The issue concerned whether the full amount of a law firm disbursement account should be added to the cost award.

After reviewing detailed particulars, the court found the discounted account represented fair value for services rendered and that the disbursements were reasonable.

The court approved inclusion of the full amount of the account as a disbursement and revised the total costs award accordingly.

Former directors sought declarations that claims advanced in a Quebec class action concerning pension losses were barred by releases granted during Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the motion because the dispute concerned the effect of orders and releases issued within the CCAA restructuring.

The contractual releases executed by the union on behalf of beneficiaries were broadly worded and applied to all claims relating to facts existing at the time of the release, whether known or unknown.

The court found that the claims process and releases extinguished any potential claims against the directors relating to the pension deficit.

Accordingly, the Quebec class action claims against the directors were fully and irrevocably released.

In CCAA proceedings, the debtor companies sought approval of a debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing facility and a super-priority DIP lenders’ charge ranking ahead of other encumbrances, including potential pension-related claims.

Two unions opposed the motion, arguing that granting super priority would undermine fiduciary duties owed to pension plan beneficiaries and that the evidentiary record was insufficient to justify the relief.

The court held that the statutory requirements under s. 11.2 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act were satisfied and that DIP financing was necessary to maintain operations and conduct a sales or restructuring process.

Applying the doctrine of federal paramountcy, the court found that the CCAA could override conflicting provincial pension legislation where necessary to avoid bankruptcy and facilitate restructuring.

The DIP facility and super-priority charge were approved.

Three employers applied for judicial review of arbitration awards that reinstated employees who had been discharged following criminal convictions for sexual assault in the workplace.

In each case, the arbitrators had allowed the unions to collaterally attack the criminal convictions and had concluded the employees were innocent.

The Divisional Court granted the applications and quashed the arbitration awards, holding that a criminal conviction cannot be collaterally attacked at a subsequent arbitration.

The doctrine of abuse of process prevents an arbitrator from retrying a criminal case and treating a conviction as merely prima facie evidence.

The appellant union refused to proceed with a part-time employee's dismissal grievance, arguing part-time employees had no grievance rights under the collective agreement.

The Canada Labour Relations Board found the union breached its statutory duty of fair representation and ordered the grievance to proceed to arbitration at the union's expense.

The union sought judicial review, alleging the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board's decision was protected by a privative clause and its interpretation of its statutory powers was not patently unreasonable, thus no jurisdictional error occurred.

The appeal was quashed.