John E. Brooks

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's interim award ordering it to make ex gratia payments to a grieving employee whose sick leave benefits had been terminated.

The Divisional Court held that while the arbitrator's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act as granting jurisdiction for the interim award was unreasonable, his alternative reliance on the collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

The interim award was upheld and the application for judicial review was largely dismissed.

The employer laid off seniority employees and later proposed to recall them as seasonal employees at a lower wage rate, without the benefits accorded to seniority employees.

An arbitrator ruled that the employer could do so under the collective agreement's management rights clause, characterizing 'seasonal employee' as a job classification.

The Divisional Court quashed the award.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the standard of review for an Ontario labour arbitrator interpreting a collective agreement remains patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's decision was patently unreasonable because 'seasonal employee' is an employment status, not a classification, and the collective agreement did not permit stripping recalled seniority employees of their acquired rights.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring a grievor, a registered nurse returning from a medical leave for physical surgery, to provide answers to questions regarding her mental health.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable, as there was no basis to require a psychological assessment given that the grievor's absence was for physical, not mental, reasons.

The application for judicial review was granted and the arbitrator's award was set aside.

The appellant employee filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act for unpaid commissions.

An employment standards officer rejected the claim without providing the employee an opportunity to respond to the employer's submissions.

The employee subsequently pursued a civil action for wrongful dismissal and the unpaid commissions.

The lower courts held the civil claim for commissions was barred by issue estoppel.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that while the preconditions for issue estoppel were met, the doctrine should not be applied as a matter of discretion because the administrative decision was made in a manifestly unfair manner.

The applicant, a former hospital employee and newly elected union vice-president, alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to judicially review an arbitration award that confirmed his discharge.

The applicant had previously convinced the union executive to boycott the arbitration hearing, believing he would not get a fair hearing, and signed a release acknowledging the risks.

The Board found no explicit promise by the union to pursue judicial review; rather, the threat of review was a ruse agreed upon by the executive, including the applicant.

The decision not to pursue judicial review was found to be reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing police officers at the University of Toronto.

The incumbent union and the employer argued that the application was untimely because their collective agreement had been extended pursuant to the Social Contract Act.

The Board held that the Social Contract Act does not explicitly or implicitly protect incumbent bargaining agents from displacement applications during the open periods defined in the Labour Relations Act.

The Board concluded that the application was timely and directed that the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.