Richard J. Charney

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the calculation of partial-day absences for relief letter carriers.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreement did not require rounding up daily totals of partial absences and had considered the union's history of withdrawing similar grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and use of extrinsic evidence were justified and internally coherent.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its unfair labour practice complaint without a hearing.

The complaint alleged that the respondents improperly applied a local collective agreement over a provincial agreement in the construction industry.

The Divisional Court held that the application was not premature despite the applicant's failure to seek reconsideration from the Board.

However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board had reasonably concluded that the two collective agreements could co-exist, that inquiring into the complaint served no labour relations purpose since the affected employer did not participate, and that the declaratory relief sought was of limited practical utility.

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.

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 Union filed a policy grievance claiming that its bargaining rights extended to the PRESTO division of Metrolinx, arguing that PRESTO was functionally integrated into Metrolinx and that certain positions within PRESTO performed bargaining unit work.

The Employer maintained that the Union's bargaining rights were restricted to the GO Transit division, as explicitly stated in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly restricted bargaining rights to GO Transit and that PRESTO existed as a legitimate, identifiable division without sufficient functional integration to extend the bargaining unit.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) brought a Charter challenge alleging that Sections 2(1) and 5 of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) violated the freedom of association rights of agricultural workers at a medical marijuana facility under Section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that the AEPA provides a meaningful process of collective bargaining, including employee choice, independence, and a duty of good faith.

The Tribunal concluded that the absence of a statutory right to strike or a Wagner Act model of collective bargaining did not render the AEPA unconstitutional.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.

The Attorney General brought a motion to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a scheduled constitutional challenge hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would unnecessarily disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in court, and stated that issues of reliability and weight could be addressed during the hearing.

The Attorney General moved to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a constitutional challenge hearing before the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal also noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in a court of law, leaving issues of reliability and weight for later determination.

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.

Canada Post Corporation appealed an arbitrator's decision that reinstated Christopher Seivright, a temporary postal worker, after his dismissal for failing to demonstrate reasonable availability in accepting work assignments.

The arbitrator rejected Canada Post's use of a peer average acceptance rate (37.8% versus 49.9% peer average) as the sole basis for termination, finding it arbitrary and unreasonable.

The arbitrator considered contextual factors including the 24/7 operation of the York Distribution Centre, high parcel volume, the grievor's seniority, and the actual number of shifts worked (57 shifts, placing him in the top 25-30% of temporary employees).

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's decision as reasonable despite departing from prior arbitral jurisprudence on certain points.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no binding arbitral precedent for mechanical application of acceptance rate standards and confirming that reasonable availability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis considering relevant workplace circumstances.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several individual complainants filed a complaint against MedReleaf Corp. under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA).

The complainants alleged that MedReleaf failed to provide the union a reasonable opportunity to make representations and thwarted attempts to organize through threats, intimidation, and coercion.

The Tribunal found that MedReleaf did not violate the AEPA.

MedReleaf had reasonably requested confirmation of the union's representational status, which the union refused to provide.

Furthermore, MedReleaf discharged its reverse onus under the AEPA, proving that it did not engage in an anti-union campaign, did not use external agents to intimidate employees, and did not unlawfully discipline or dismiss employees.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on a Ministerial reference, arguing they were denied procedural fairness because the Minister's question was inaccurately conveyed to them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on a Ministerial reference is an advisory opinion that does not determine legal rights and is therefore not reviewable on procedural fairness grounds.

Furthermore, the court found that the procedural defect did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the applicants had ample opportunity to address the core issues and the outcome would not have been different.

Canada Post Corporation applied for judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a temporary employee dismissed for failing to demonstrate reasonable availability.

The arbitrator found the dismissal unjustified, introducing a requirement for corporate prejudice.

The Divisional Court held that while the arbitrator failed to follow established arbitral jurisprudence and impermissibly amended the collective agreement by requiring corporate prejudice, his ultimate conclusion that the dismissal was unreasonable remained defensible on the facts.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, with one judge dissenting.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a policy grievance concerning the employer's amendment to its photo identification policy.

The amendment discontinued the practice of allowing non-management employees to bring an occasional visitor on transit vehicles without paying a fare.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable, as the plain wording did not require consideration of past practice.

The Court also found that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the employer's past practice did not give rise to an estoppel, as there was no representation by the employer that the practice would continue.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The union and the employers' association failed to reach a new collective agreement for the residential construction sector.

An arbitrator was appointed under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employers' association argued the arbitrator's jurisdiction was limited to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), while the union argued for a province-wide award.

The arbitrator determined he had jurisdiction to make a province-wide award to avoid fracturing the bargaining unit.

The Divisional Court quashed the award for areas outside the GTA.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's jurisdictional decision was reasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and restored the province-wide award.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that removed seven personal respondents from his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the interim decision was not a 'final decision' within the meaning of the Tribunal's Rules, as it did not dispose of the central issues or deprive the applicant of a remedy.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or raised a matter of general or public importance.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board arbitration award that ordered rectification of a collective agreement's recognition clause.

The Board found that exclusionary language regarding office and technical staff had been inserted by mistake.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for an arbitrator's application of the equitable doctrine of rectification is reasonableness.

The Court upheld the Board's decision to rectify the agreement by removing the mistakenly inserted language.

However, the Court found the Board's subsequent interpretation of the rectified clause and its order for the parties to draft new language to be unreasonable, and set aside that portion of the award.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal anonymize a previously issued decision dismissing her application, citing the need to protect her privacy, dignity, and sensitive medical history.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

Treating the request as a Request for Reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules, the adjudicator granted the request, noting that failing to anonymize the decision would defeat the purpose of a previously anonymized grievance arbitration decision involving the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a province-wide collective agreement.

The Arbitrator was appointed under the Labour Relations Act to resolve a dispute in the residential construction sector.

The applicant argued the Arbitrator's jurisdiction was statutorily limited to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the legislation expressly restricted the Arbitrator's authority to the GTA and that he could not use a regulation to expand his jurisdiction and interfere with the parties' right to strike or lockout outside the GTA.

The non-GTA portion of the award was quashed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that declared pre-access alcohol and drug testing, implemented in response to Suncor's site access requirements, violated the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in Irving Pulp & Paper.

The court found the arbitrator reasonably concluded there was no evidence of a substance abuse problem at the Sarnia worksite to justify the privacy intrusion of pre-access testing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.