Michael A. Church

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision denying his request to reactivate his human rights application.

The application had been deferred pending grievance arbitrations, which were withdrawn in 2018.

The applicant filed his reactivation request over four years later.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit due to the length of the delay, the lack of a reasonable explanation, and prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and noting the applicant was the author of his own misfortune.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed a union grievance regarding the assignment of bargaining unit work to management personnel.

The arbitrator found that a bargaining unit member was available for the assignment, despite not meeting the specific conditions of the Auxiliary Board, and that the employer breached the collective agreement by using a manager.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and finding of availability were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of pay for personal leave days taken by a locomotive engineer under the Canada Labour Code.

The arbitrator found that because the collective agreement did not specifically provide a method for calculating personal leave pay, the default calculation under s. 17(a) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations applied, rather than the 'basic day' rate argued by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the legislation and the collective agreement was reasonable and consistent with the purpose of ensuring employees do not suffer a wage loss when taking personal leave.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a single judge's order dismissing its application for judicial review for delay.

The Divisional Court panel first granted an extension of time to hear the late-filed motion.

On the merits, the panel held that the standard of review is deferential and the motion judge did not err in finding that an 11-month delay, combined with an insufficient explanation and prejudice to the respondent, warranted dismissal.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the applicant employer's application for judicial review for delay.

The employer had failed to perfect its application within the court-ordered timetable or the 30-day period under the Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in a delay of at least 11 months.

The court found the delay excessive, the employer's explanation unreasonable, and noted prejudice to the union due to the prolonged uncertainty and the employer's attempt to substantively amend its application.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) declaration.

The OLRB had declared Enercare Home & Commercial Services Limited Partnership, Ganeh Energy Services Ltd., and Beaver Energy Services Ltd. to be related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but not Perras Mechanical Services Ltd. The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decision unreasonable for failing to consider bargaining history and collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, and restored the OLRB's original decision.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal statement of claim that referred to a settlement offer and subsequent communications.

The plaintiff argued the communications were not privileged or, alternatively, fell under the exception for pleading bad faith.

The court found the communications were protected by settlement privilege and that the plaintiff's bad faith claim lacked an air of reality, as the dispute centered on a genuine disagreement over contract interpretation.

The motion to strike was largely granted.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision declaring them 'related employers' under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had argued that the employer's use of independent contractors eroded bargaining rights.

The Divisional Court found the OLRB Vice Chair's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider the history of collective bargaining, the collective agreement, and letters of understanding regarding the employer's longstanding practice of contracting out work.

The court held that this failure led to a decontextualized analysis of the employer's control over the contractors.

The court set aside the OLRB decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a different Vice Chair.

The applicant railway company sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld a union grievance concerning work jurisdiction.

The arbitrator found that the applicant improperly assigned yard service work to a road service conductor-only crew, contrary to the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and application to the specific facts was intelligible, transparent, and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reinstating a railway conductor who was terminated following a positive urine test for marijuana.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably excluded an expert report on marijuana impairment tendered eight days before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably exercised his discretion to exclude the late report to protect the integrity and fairness of the expedited arbitration process.

The Court also upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that a positive urine test, without corroborating evidence of impairment, did not establish a violation of the employer's drug policy.

The applicant brought a motion under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The motion judge had dismissed the applicant's request to file four affidavits in support of its application for judicial review of a labour arbitration decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law.

The court agreed that the proposed affidavits, which detailed oral submissions made before the arbitrator, were an impermissible attempt to supplement the record and did not fall within the narrow exceptions for admitting affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The plaintiff, Bob Kinnear, on behalf of Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant, Lawrence J. Hanley, representing the Amalgamated Transit Union (International), from imposing a trusteeship over Local 113 and from disciplining its members.

The motion also sought to authorize Kinnear to represent Local 113 members and to have Local 113 provide the undertaking as to damages.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction to restrain the trusteeship and ordered Local 113 to provide the undertaking, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the unconscionability of International's constitution, irreparable harm to democratic rights, and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The request for a representative order was deferred.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing his application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding his termination.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because his union failed to provide a Somali interpreter at the arbitration hearing, which he claimed fell under the deficient representation exception to the rule against individual standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the evidence did not support the need for an interpreter and noting the applicant's proper remedy was before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant employee sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed his grievance regarding his termination for cause.

The respondent union and employer brought a motion to quash the application on the basis that the employee lacked standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the union was the exclusive bargaining agent and the employee had no independent right to seek judicial review.

The court rejected the employee's argument that he was denied natural justice due to the lack of an interpreter at the arbitration, noting that he was fluent in English and that any complaint regarding the union's representation should have been brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board as a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The applicant employer sought a labour injunction under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act to restrain picketing by locked-out employees.

The court applied the four-part test for a labour injunction and found that the employer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as there were no criminal charges, civil actions, or disciplined employees, and the alleged loss of business was a bald assertion.

Furthermore, the court found that the police had been responsive and effective in maintaining the peace.

The application was dismissed.

The moving parties sought dismissal of a civil action brought by a former employee claiming damages relating to unpaid short‑term disability benefits and alleged breach of a settlement agreement.

The court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation and administration of a collective agreement governing employment benefits.

Under the Labour Relations Act, such disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration.

The court further held that even if jurisdiction existed, the claim was statute‑barred because the plaintiff knew or ought to have known by February 2009 that the benefits would not be paid, yet did not commence the action until June 2011.

The action was dismissed and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.

The applicant union sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board approving a settlement between a rival union and the employers.

The settlement declared two drugstore chains to be related employers and granted the rival union sole bargaining rights for all employees of the non-unionized chain in Ontario, including the Ottawa region where the applicant traditionally represented employees of the unionized chain.

The applicant was not given notice of the settlement or the underlying applications.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by unreasonably requiring the applicant to already represent employees of the non-unionized chain to be entitled to notice.

The Court held that the applicant was significantly affected by the decision and had a right to intervene.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitral award.

The board of arbitration had ruled that the employer's policy of random drug testing for safety-sensitive employees, absent reasonable cause, violated the collective agreement's requirement to treat employees with dignity and respect.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Divisional Court erred in applying the patent unreasonableness standard instead of reasonableness, the board's decision was reasonable.

The board did not err by referencing the 'Canadian model' of arbitral jurisprudence, nor did it improperly rely on facts outside the record or amend the collective agreement.

Imperial Oil Limited applied for judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that its random drug testing policy using buccal swabs violated the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitration board's interpretation of the collective agreement in light of established arbitral jurisprudence (the 'Canadian model') was not patently unreasonable.

The Court held that the board did not alter the collective agreement, did not rely on unsupported findings of fact, and reasonably interpreted the agreement's requirement to treat employees with respect and dignity without needing to apply the Human Rights Code.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal of a refusal to certify a class proceeding regarding pension plan amendments, the respondents sought costs.

The appellants argued that no costs should be awarded, relying on the public interest and novel point of law provisions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Divisional Court found no special circumstances to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court awarded costs to the respondents, including disbursements for a responding report on a fresh evidence motion.