Jodi Martin

The applicants brought a Charter challenge alleging that the Government of Ontario's cancellation of a joint task force violated their right to freedom of association under section 2(d).

The task force had been proposed during collective bargaining between the union and the college employer council to help resolve a strike, but no collective agreement was reached and the strike was ended by back-to-work legislation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the task force was not part of any collective agreement and its cancellation did not substantially interfere with the collective bargaining process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation application against her union.

The OLRB had dismissed the application partly due to delay and partly for failing to establish a prima facie case that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith regarding her termination grievance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the OLRB's conclusions regarding delay or the lack of a prima facie case.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a teacher, alleged that her principal sexually harassed and assaulted her, and that the school board reprised against her.

The plaintiff's union had declined to pursue a grievance on her behalf due to the passage of time.

The court applied the Weber test and held that the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement.

The court found no 'remedial gap' that would grant it jurisdiction simply because the union chose not to pursue the grievance.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his human rights complaints against his employer and union.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Divisional Court found the delay of 16 months to commence the application and almost another year to perfect it was excessive.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and presuming prejudice to the respondents, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellants, current and former uniform members of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing their proposed class action for want of jurisdiction and denying certification.

The appellants alleged systemic gender-based workplace discrimination and harassment, including breach of Charter rights and breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the appellants' claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the Police Services Act and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court noted that the collective agreement permits group grievances and arbitrators possess broad remedial powers.

The plaintiffs, current and former female police officers, sought to certify a class action against the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board and Association for systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.

The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that labour arbitrators and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario had exclusive jurisdiction.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction, as the claims arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement and the Police Services Act, which provide a comprehensive dispute resolution scheme.

Furthermore, the court determined that even if it had jurisdiction, the claims did not disclose a viable cause of action under common law, as human rights legislation precludes independent civil actions for discrimination and sexual harassment.

The Children's Lawyer for Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Information and Privacy Commissioner's order that the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) had custody or control of the Children's Lawyer's litigation records relating to child clients, and therefore such records were subject to freedom of information access requests under FIPPA.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Children's Lawyer operates independently from MAG with respect to her core functions of representing children, and therefore MAG does not have custody or control of child client records.

The court emphasized the importance of confidentiality in the Children's Lawyer-child relationship to the proper functioning of the legal system and the best interests of children.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing his complaints against his union and its president for alleged breaches of the duty of fair representation and intimidation.

The applicant alleged the union president told the college president to fire him after the applicant raised concerns about the union's workplace culture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the applicant suffered no actual prejudice in his employment relationship.

In a proposed class action alleging systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment within the Waterloo Regional Police Service, the parties brought several pre-certification motions.

The plaintiffs' motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examination by the Chief of Police and the Association President were dismissed.

The defendants' motions to strike the plaintiffs' expert evidence and portions of the plaintiffs' affidavits were deemed premature and deferred to the certification motion, though the expert opinion portion of the report was excluded.

The appellant, a manager at a provincial jail, filed a human rights complaint after the respondent union president posted sexist comments about her on a union blog during a labour dispute.

The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint, finding the conduct did not constitute discrimination 'with respect to employment' under s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code, after balancing the Code's objectives with the respondent's Charter rights to freedom of expression and association.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision on judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that administrative tribunals must consider Charter values when interpreting their home statutes, even absent ambiguity, and that the Tribunal's balancing of these rights was reasonable.

Following the dismissal of her application for judicial review, the applicant opposed an award of costs, arguing the case involved novel human rights issues of public importance.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding the proceeding was a quest for personal vindication arising from fractious collective bargaining, not a public interest matter.

The court awarded the successful respondents $7,500 in costs, discounting their requested amount of $15,000 to exclude expenses related to the involvement of three intervenors.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, an employee of the Windsor Central Ambulance Communications Centre, was improperly scheduled for shifts, resulting in 160 hours of lost time.

Following an expedited hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a ruling without reasons, ordering the employer to compensate the grievor for the 160 hours of lost time and to schedule her for shifts pursuant to standard procedures going forward.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer's human resources software (WIN) discriminated against a transgender employee by lacking gender-neutral prefixes and pronouns.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that its addition of the category 'unknown' to the system fully satisfied its duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion as premature, holding that evidence was required to assess whether the accommodation adequately addressed the specific nature of the alleged discrimination regarding gender identity and expression.

The applicant, a graduate student, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed (ethical veganism) after her university professors criticized her academic work and the university ultimately prohibited her from pursuing a research topic relating to animal rights.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Assuming without deciding that ethical veganism is a creed, the Tribunal found that academic criticism of a student's scholarship does not constitute discrimination simply because it relates to the student's personally-held beliefs.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing pending the completion of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's updated policy on creed.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant an adjournment.

The Tribunal also directed that the parties and proposed intervenors would make submissions at the outset of the summary hearing regarding the order in which the issues would be addressed.

The grievor, a female correctional officer at a women's facility, requested an accommodation to be exempted from performing primary strip searches of female inmates due to medical restrictions related to stress and her sexual orientation.

The employer offered a temporary accommodation at an adjacent men's facility where she would not be required to perform primary strip searches but could perform all other duties.

The grievor declined, arguing she should be accommodated at her home facility and that the employer failed its procedural duty by not consulting her on options.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer did not breach its procedural duty and that the offer of accommodation at the adjacent facility was reasonable, as it fully met her medical restrictions without loss of pay or status, thereby discharging the employer's duty to accommodate.

The Union grieved the Employer's failure to replenish the grievor's sick leave bank on January 1, 2011, following a mediated Memorandum of Agreement.

The grievor had been placed on a training course that took a two-week break over Christmas, during which she was placed on sick leave because the Employer refused to continue her regular salary.

The Employer argued that under the collective agreement, being on sick leave on December 31 and January 3 disqualified her from sick bank replenishment.

The arbitrator held that the strict terms of the collective agreement should not apply, as the sick leave designation during the break was a contrivance to provide compensation.

The arbitrator found the grievor was effectively 'at work' during the course and ordered the replenishment of her sick leave bank.