Lewis Gottheil

The Minister of Education brought a Stated Case asking the Divisional Court to determine whether the Education Act permits school boards to pay for life insurance and health benefits for retired employees over 65 years of age.

The Minister argued that the Act only permits payments to current employees and that specific statutory authority is required for such expenditures.

The Court held that while ss. 177(3) and 177(4) do not authorize these payments, other sections of the Act, including ss. 58.5(1), 170(1)18, 171(1)3, and 177(1), when read together and in context, provide the necessary authority.

The Court found that school boards have the power to negotiate and pay for post-retirement benefits as part of employee compensation packages.

The proposed interveners, two unions, brought motions for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review concerning the payment of post-retirement benefits by a school board.

The judicial review was scheduled to be heard immediately after a related Stated Case in which both proposed interveners were already participating.

The court dismissed one union's motion to intervene, finding it could efficiently make its arguments in the Stated Case proceeding without prolonging the judicial review.

However, the court added the other union as a responding party because it was a joint signatory to the collective agreement at issue in the underlying arbitration.

The appellant employer appealed decisions of the Financial Services Tribunal ordering a partial windup of its pension plan following a plant closure.

The Tribunal found that a reorganization had occurred prior to the closure and included employees laid off during that period in the windup group.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's determination that a reorganization occurred and its definition of the windup group were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court also upheld the Tribunal's jurisdictional rulings regarding the Superintendent's authority.

The applicant sought judicial review of four decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had dismissed his complaint of disability discrimination against his former employer and union.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions, finding it reasonable to bar re-litigation of facts decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rejecting allegations of bias, and finding no denial of procedural fairness in refusing late document production.

The Court also found the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the applicant's termination was based on misconduct, not disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, challenging his suspension and dismissal.

The applicant's union concurrently filed a grievance regarding the same dismissal, which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which only the respondent replied, supporting deferral.

Finding that the grievance and the application involved the same facts and human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin and citizenship due to the employer's application of ITAR regulations, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on procedural matters.

The Tribunal limited the intervening Union's participation to written and oral submissions, denying its request to call evidence and cross-examine witnesses to avoid undue delay and repetition.

The Tribunal permitted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene regarding Charter issues.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that extrinsic evidence from the applicant's former counsel regarding the interpretation of a prior Minutes of Settlement and Release was inadmissible, as the language of the release was clear and unambiguous.

The applicant, a transgender woman, filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment by her employer and failure to investigate by her union between 2004 and 2007, as well as a harassing voicemail received in February 2009.

The respondents requested dismissal for delay.

The Tribunal found that the gap of more than one year between 2007 and 2009 disrupted any 'series of incidents.' Furthermore, the applicant's medical evidence did not establish that she was incapable of filing the application in a timely manner, given her participation in other complex activities during that period.

The 2004-2007 allegations against both respondents were dismissed as untimely.

However, the timely 2009 voicemail allegation against the employer was permitted to proceed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed grievances filed by the respondent union.

The arbitrator had found that employees laid off for more than 35 weeks could concurrently elect to receive severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and claim retirement benefits under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding her interpretation of the collective agreement and treatment of arbitral jurisprudence to be intelligible, transparent, and justified.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin and citizenship, arising from the respondent's application of ITAR regulations which restricted his access to controlled goods.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The Tribunal declined to strike the applicant's Notice of Constitutional Question at this stage.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, with the scope to be determined, and granted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association limited intervenor status to address whether the application of ITAR constitutes discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal also set timelines for responding to a request for production and for submissions regarding a proposed witness.

The applicant, a practicing Christian who observes weekly and High Sabbaths, alleged that his employer and union discriminated against him on the basis of creed.

He claimed the employer was required to provide paid leave for his High Sabbaths and that the union failed to negotiate such leave or pursue his grievance.

The Tribunal dismissed these claims, finding that the duty to accommodate does not require employers to pay wages for time not worked.

However, the Tribunal found that the employer's Attendance Recognition Program, which disqualified the applicant from perfect attendance bonuses due to his unpaid religious absences, constituted adverse effect discrimination.

The employer was ordered to pay $2,000 for injury to dignity and to revise the program.

The respondents, an employer and a union, brought requests to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaints under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the complaints had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request, finding that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had appropriately dealt with the allegations against the union in a section 74 duty of fair representation application.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the employer's request, finding that a grievance settlement between the employer and the union, which the complainant refused to sign and which did not explicitly address discrimination, did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights allegations against the employer.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award dismissing a grievance for severance pay for employees following a plant closure.

The arbitrator ruled that the employees were not eligible for severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 because they received pension benefits that fell within the statutory exemption.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the legislation, including her consideration of the Pension Benefits Act and use of commuted values to compare pension benefits, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, who required dialysis for a kidney condition, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing shift changes and ultimately terminating his employment.

He also alleged the union failed to properly represent him.

The applicant withdrew the application against the union during the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding insufficient evidence that shift changes were refused for disability-related reasons.

The Tribunal also found that the termination was based on a series of bona fide misconduct incidents and was not a pretext for disability discrimination.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and ethnic origin.

The employer and union brought requests for early dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the employer's request to dismiss allegations older than one year, finding they formed a series of incidents culminating in the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the complaint against the union regarding its handling of the termination grievance under section 45.1, issue estoppel, or abuse of process, as the OLRB had not addressed the discrimination issue, though the applicant was barred from re-litigating the OLRB's factual findings.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union regarding a May 2006 accommodation request due to unexplained delay.

The appellant First Nation enacted its own labour relations code after a union was certified to represent workers at a casino located on its reserve.

The appellant argued that its code displaced the provincial Labour Relations Act based on its aboriginal and treaty rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish an aboriginal practice, custom, or tradition that supported the right to enact a labour relations code.

The Court also held that the Crown did not breach its duty to consult and accommodate, as the appellant's claim was not sufficiently credible and the appellant had taken unilateral action.

The applicant, CBS Canada Co., and the Superintendent of Financial Services, along with the CAW-Canada, reached a settlement regarding the partial wind-up of the Westinghouse Canada Inc. Pension Plans following several plant closures.

The Financial Services Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement, which detailed the calculation of early retirement benefits for affected plan members and the withdrawal of the Superintendent's Notices of Proposal to refuse the partial wind-up reports.

The Tribunal remained seized of the matter for implementation purposes.

The applicant employer brought an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act seeking a declaration of an unlawful strike and a cease and desist order.

The employer asserted that a serious work stoppage had caused significant disruption at its Oshawa facilities.

Following an expedited hearing and based on the agreement of the institutional parties, the Board declared that the respondent employees had engaged in an unlawful strike in violation of section 79 of the Act.

The Board directed the employees to immediately cease and desist from engaging in the unlawful strike and from prompting others to do so.

The CAW-Canada filed an application for certification, and SEIU Local 663 filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and CAW-Canada.

On the day scheduled for hearing, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement resolving their disputes.

Pursuant to the settlement, the parties agreed that a collective agreement subsisted between SEIU Local 663 and the employer, and both the application for certification and the unfair labour practice complaint were withdrawn by leave of the Board.

The union applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying additional severance and termination pay to employees displaced by a plant closure.

Prior to a hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The union subsequently requested leave to withdraw its application for review.

The adjudicator granted the request and terminated the proceeding.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to stay or dismiss the 1994 human rights complaints against them on the grounds of abuse of process.

The complaints alleged discrimination on the basis of handicap regarding the placement of the complainant following a workplace injury.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission's handling of the complaints involved significant delay, failure to provide timely notice, and inadequate disclosure.

Combined with the closure of the workplace, the destruction of relevant documents, and the deaths of key witnesses including the complainant, the respondents suffered irremediable prejudice.

The Board concluded that continuing the hearing would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed the complaints against all respondents.