5 total
Judicial review of arbitration award upholding bus driver's dismissal dismissed; criminal acquittal did not preclude civil findings.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award upholding the dismissal of a bus driver who was involved in a fatal rear-end collision.
The driver had been acquitted of criminal negligence and dangerous driving charges.
The union argued that under the doctrine of abuse of process, the arbitration board erred by allowing the employer to relitigate facts decided in the criminal trial and by finding the driver grossly negligent.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the abuse of process doctrine did not apply because the employer was not a party to the criminal proceedings.
The court further found that the arbitration board's conclusions regarding gross negligence, its decision to take a view of the accident scene, and its interpretation of the collective agreement were not patently unreasonable.
Citizenship preference in federal public service employment infringes s. 15(1) but is justified under s. 1.
The appellants, foreign nationals living in Canada, challenged s. 16(4)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act, which gives preference to Canadian citizens in open competitions for federal public service employment.
They argued this preference violated their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter.
A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that while the provision infringes s. 15(1) by discriminating on the analogous ground of citizenship, it is saved under s. 1 as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The Court found the objectives of enhancing the meaning of citizenship and encouraging naturalization to be pressing and substantial, and the preference to be rationally connected and minimally impairing.
Pension benefits denied as officer's move to new police force deemed continuation of employment under successor employer rules.
The Ontario Pension Board requested a hearing regarding a proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to order the Board to pay Victor Burns his full pension benefits retroactive to his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.
Mr. Burns had terminated his employment with the OPP and commenced employment with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services during a period when police services were being transferred between the two entities.
The Tribunal found that Mr. Burns' new employment was in conjunction with the disposition of police services, meaning section 80(3) of the Pension Benefits Act applied.
Consequently, his employment was deemed not to be terminated, and he was not entitled to commence receiving a pension on the date he ceased employment with the OPP.
The Superintendent's proposal was quashed.
Union breached duty of fair representation by failing to consult employees before concluding collective agreement.
The applicant union applied for certification of employees at a new plant.
The employer and the incumbent union argued the application was untimely due to a recently signed collective agreement.
The applicant and employee complainants argued the agreement should be set aside under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act or as a remedy for the incumbent union's breach of its duty of fair representation under section 68.
The Board found that the incumbent union already held bargaining rights for the new plant under a prior city-wide agreement, so section 60 did not apply.
However, the Board held that the incumbent union breached section 68 by completely failing to consult the new plant's employees before concluding a separate, inferior collective agreement for them.
The Board declined to set aside the collective agreement as a remedy, finding it inappropriate to penalize the employer who had not breached the Act, but ordered the union to pay damages to the complainants for the loss of opportunity to be consulted.
Applications for consent to prosecute and cease-and-desist direction dismissed as picketing did not constitute a strike.
The applicant employer filed applications for a consent to prosecute and a cease-and-desist direction against the respondent union and several individuals, alleging an unlawful strike arising from picketing at the applicant's premises.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding that no employees failed to perform their scheduled shifts and therefore no "strike" within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act had occurred.
A dissenting board member would have granted the requested order, arguing that the concerted activity was designed to restrict or limit output by dissuading the public from patronizing the restaurant.
