Maurice A. Green

The appellant union appealed an order of the Divisional Court that had quashed an arbitrator's award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting reasons of Swinton J. at the Divisional Court.

The arbitrator's award was reinstated, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Labour's delegate to revoke a prior order that authorized a multi-site joint health and safety committee for the respondent school board.

The applicants argued the delegate failed to consider statutory criteria, exercise discretion properly, and provide procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delegate's decision was a discretionary administrative decision akin to public policy, owed significant deference, and was reasonable given the committee's dysfunction.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that the collective agreement obliged the board to pay a 6-week 'top-up' to educational support staff on pregnancy leave, even if the birth occurred during the summer layoff period when they were not receiving regular wages.

The Divisional Court (majority) allowed the application and quashed the award, finding that the arbitrator unreasonably relied on arbitral jurisprudence regarding teachers as a 'backdrop' when the language of the collective agreement was clear and unambiguous.

The dissenting judge would have upheld the arbitrator's decision as reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of Labour's decision to revoke an order authorizing a multi-workplace joint health and safety committee.

The respondent school board brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of the applicants' affidavits, arguing they contained irrelevant information, hearsay, and improper opinion evidence.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that the full panel hearing the judicial review application would be in a better position to assess the admissibility and relevance of the affidavit evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision assigning the teaching of the Life and Learning Skills program for students aged 14 and older in secondary schools to members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

The applicant argued the work should belong to elementary teachers because the academic content was at the primary level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB correctly interpreted the Education Act by considering the physical location, educational purpose, and body of pupils, and reasonably applied labour relations principles to conclude the work belonged to secondary school teachers.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a teacher found guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee had imposed a one-year suspension, with seven months running concurrently with a prior employer suspension, and the remaining five months suspended on conditions.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Committee's decision not to revoke the teacher's certificate was reasonable.

The Court dismissed the appeal but varied the wording of the penalty to clarify the five-month conditional suspension.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent teacher.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it failed to properly represent him regarding threats from students and systemic discrimination by the school administration.

The applicant also raised a constitutional question, arguing the Board's standard for assessing union liability under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act was too low and violated the Charter.

The Board rejected the constitutional challenge, finding its test for arbitrariness was appropriate.

While the Board expressed concern over the union's initial handling of the applicant's complaints and its misunderstanding of its representational role, it ultimately dismissed the application.

The Board found the union did not violate section 74, as the immediate student issues had been resolved by the administration before the union could intervene, and the applicant had waited too long to report the alleged systemic discrimination incidents.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, which created a new governance and funding model for Ontario school boards.

The appellants argued the legislation violated denominational education rights under s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 by removing local taxation powers and limiting financial control.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation did not prejudicially affect denominational rights, as it only regulated secular aspects of education and provided fair and equitable funding.

The Court also held that the delegation of taxation powers to the Minister of Finance was constitutional as it was express and unambiguous.

The appellants challenged amendments to Bill 160 that removed principals and vice-principals from teacher bargaining units, excluded them from the provincial labour relations regime, and ended their statutory membership in teachers' organizations.

They argued the amendments were a reprisal for participation in a province-wide protest against education reform legislation and therefore infringed freedom of expression and freedom of association under ss. 2(b) and 2(d) of the Charter.

The court held that the appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the legislative purpose was punitive rather than corrective, and further held that exclusion from a statutory collective bargaining scheme and removal of mandatory statutory union membership did not violate s. 2(d).

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant union engaged in a 'work to rule' campaign while in a legal strike position.

The responding school board sent a letter to the union advising that the actions were illegal under the Education Act and threatening court proceedings if the campaign did not end.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the letter interfered with its lawful strike activity.

The Board found that the 'work to rule' campaign constituted a protected lawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the school board's letter expressing its view that the actions were illegal and threatening legal action did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The applicants, representing occasional teachers, sought interim relief and filed a complaint alleging the OSSTF and the Toronto District School Board breached the Labour Relations Act.

They argued that a new collective agreement for full-time teachers effectively eliminated the work of occasional teachers, breaching the OSSTF's duty of fair representation and the employer's duty not to interfere with a trade union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, holding that a union's duty of fair representation only applies when it is actively representing that specific bargaining unit, and that the employer's agreement to terms impacting another unit's work did not constitute statutory interference.

The appellant Board of Education discharged a teacher after he wrote abusive and threatening letters to the Board's administration.

The teacher grieved the dismissal, and a majority of the arbitration board ordered his conditional reinstatement, finding his conduct was temporary due to stress.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, but the Court of Appeal restored it.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that the arbitration board's decision was patently unreasonable.

The evidence overwhelmingly showed the teacher's conduct was not temporary and that he was unfit to return to the classroom.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitration award quashed.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined whether certain individuals should be counted as employees in the proposed bargaining unit of electricians.

The Board found that an employee attending a training program on the application date was not 'at work' in the unit.

The Board also held that three employees performing electrical work on the employer's own premises, who were not qualified journeymen or apprentice electricians under the Trades Qualification Act, should not be included in the unit because they shared no real community of interest with qualified electricians who could lawfully work on construction sites for clients.

The complainant Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the unloading, handling, and installation of tool rail (Hollywood Rail and Louden Rail) and support steel at a General Motors plant.

The employer had assigned the Hollywood Rail to the United Association (UA) and the support steel to a composite crew of UA and Ironworkers.

The Board considered criteria including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economy and efficiency, employer practice, and area practice.

The Board found that the area or industry practice favoured assigning the work to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights, rejecting the UA's argument that new technology (the A.G.V. system) or the 'end use' of the rail justified the assignment.

The Board directed the employer to assign the work to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights.

The respondents and interveners brought motions to dismiss the sex discrimination complaints of two female public elementary school teachers.

The complainants alleged that the Ontario Teachers' Federation by-law requiring them to be statutory members of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, and denying them statutory membership in the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation solely because of their sex, violated their right to equal treatment under the Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry denied the motions to dismiss, finding that the complainants had established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Although the complainants suffered no economic detriment, the mandatory assignment to a gender-segregated organization against their wishes constituted an injury to their dignitary interests, which is sufficient to establish discrimination under the Code.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of occasional teachers and supply instructors employed by the respondent school boards.

The Board considered whether supply instructors, who are unqualified persons appointed in emergencies, share a sufficient community of interest with occasional teachers to be included in the same unit.

Noting the evolution of collective bargaining practice and the functional similarities between the two groups, the Board found the proposed combined bargaining units to be appropriate and directed that certificates issue to the applicant.

This is a second interim decision regarding procedures of the Board of Inquiry hearing the complaints of Margaret Tomen and Linda Logan-Smith alleging that a by-law of the Ontario Teachers' Federation discriminates against them because of their sex.

The Board of Inquiry decides on the order of appearance of the parties and interveners, the onus of proof on the complainants and respondents, procedures regarding expert evidence, and hearing dates.

The Board ruled that the Commission is not required to anticipate and rebut a section 13 special program defence as part of its prima facie case.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation applied for certification to represent a unit of psychologists, social workers, and other professionals employed by the Board of Education for the City of York, displacing the incumbent union.

The incumbent argued the applicant's constitution did not permit these employees into membership.

The Board found the applicant had an established practice of admitting such persons, satisfying the Labour Relations Act.

As the applicant demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote between the applicant and the incumbent union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of speech pathologists, psychologists, psychometrists, and social worker/attendance counsellors employed by the respondent school board.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The Board considered whether a unit defined by specific job classifications was appropriate, noting its general aversion to fragmentation.

However, given the history of separate representation for such support personnel in the school board sector and the agreement of the parties, the Board found the proposed unit appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

In an application for certification, both the applicant union and the intervener union requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board had previously deemed the intervener's application to have been made on the same date as the original application.

The intervener argued that its membership support should be assessed as of its actual intervention date, as it gathered significant support after the original application date.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the deemed application date applies for assessing membership support under section 9(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the intervener lacked the requisite 35% support and its application was dismissed.

A two-way vote between the applicant and a 'no union' option was ordered.