Eric M. Roher

The applicant union sought judicial review of two arbitration awards concerning the termination of an occasional teacher.

In the first award, the arbitrator found the termination lacked just cause but ordered damages in lieu of reinstatement without prior notice to the parties.

In the second award, the arbitrator calculated the damages, including deductions for mitigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the union should have raised its natural justice concerns regarding the first award with the arbitrator before proceeding to the damages hearing, as the arbitrator was not functus officio.

The court also found the arbitrator's mitigation analysis reasonable, distinguishing the facts from established appellate jurisprudence.

The respondent school board requested an order to remove the individually named respondent, a school principal, from the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the school board acknowledged the principal was acting within the course of his employment and assumed responsibility for his conduct.

Applying established principles, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party, as the corporate respondent could fully remedy any alleged Code infringement and the applicant would suffer no prejudice.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action for wrongful dismissal brought a motion seeking particulars of the allegations in the defendants' Statement of Defence and Crossclaim.

The plaintiffs argued the particulars were necessary to deliver a reply and to prepare for the upcoming certification motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs did not need the particulars to plead a reply, as they were not proposing a different version of facts.

Furthermore, the court held that particulars should not be used as a substitute for discovery, and the plaintiffs would have ample opportunity to understand the defendants' case through the normal certification motion procedures.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed requests to remove personal respondents and dismiss untimely allegations.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents on consent.

Applying the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal found that allegations relating to school years prior to 2004-05 for one complainant and 2005-06 for the other did not form part of a series of incidents and were therefore untimely.

As no reasonable explanation was provided for the delay, the Tribunal declined to extend the time limit under section 34(2).

The Tribunal also provided case management directions for the upcoming hearing.

The respondents requested the dismissal of human rights complaints on the grounds that the Special Education Tribunal (SET) has exclusive jurisdiction over the identification, placement, and accommodation of students with special needs, and that the complaints were moot because the students were no longer enrolled with the respondent school board.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests.

It found that because the parties had agreed on the formal placement, the SET's own jurisprudence indicated it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining disputes about programs and services, meaning the SET did not have exclusive jurisdiction here.

The Tribunal also found the complaints were not moot because there remained a live controversy about whether the students were properly accommodated while enrolled, for which remedies like damages and declarations could still be awarded.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint against a school board, the Tribunal requested further submissions from the parties on the issue of whether the Special Education Tribunal (SET) has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the identification, placement, and accommodation of students with special needs.

The adjudicator noted a recent SET decision suggesting it lacks jurisdiction over programming details when the placement itself is not in dispute, and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the implications of this decision before ruling on the preliminary jurisdictional issue.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at Tate Andale Canada Inc. A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the petition did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes, given the recent unlawful dismissal of two key union organizers and the appearance of management approval during the petition's circulation.

The Board also dismissed the employer's allegation that the union used intimidation to secure membership cards, finding the evidence of the union's witness more credible.

Finally, the Board determined that a specific employee, Richard Grainger, belonged in the bargaining unit despite his unique terms of employment.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The Globe and Mail decided to contract out its Ontario highway delivery runs and lay off its drivers to save costs.

The union alleged that the contracting out to independent carriers constituted a sale of a business or that the entities were related employers under the Labour Relations Act.

The union also alleged unfair labour practices when the Globe refused to award delivery contracts to four laid-off employees after the union indicated it might assert they remained employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding no sale of a business or related employer relationship, as the Globe merely transferred a like function to independent contractors.

The Board declined to grant remedial relief for the alleged unfair labour practices, noting the Globe's actions were a response to the union's late assertion of rights that would have undermined the legitimate business decision to contract out.