S. Shamie

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), the applicant sought approval for Transition Arrangements with its parent company, a Business Preservation Plan involving significant cash conservation measures (including suspension of pension, OPEB, and municipal tax payments), and Amended DIP Financing.

The court approved the motions, finding that the Transition Arrangements were fair and reasonable, and that the Business Preservation Plan and DIP financing were necessary to allow USSC to continue operations and pursue a restructuring solution, despite objections from the union and municipalities regarding the suspension of benefits and taxes.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that ordered her to repay a $209,912 lump sum to her former employer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant breached the confidentiality provision of a grievance settlement agreement by referencing the payment in a self-published book.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing because the union had not failed in its duty of fair representation.

Furthermore, the court held that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the repayment provision was a valid forfeiture clause, not an unconscionable penalty, and that the applicant had clearly breached the confidentiality terms.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging wrongful termination from her position at the Liquor License Board of Ontario.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was hired under the Liquor License Act, not the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the grievor was not employed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister as required by Regulation 977, and dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the employees.

Following a pre-hearing representation vote won by the applicant, the incumbent union and an employee filed objections and an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the applicant distributed false and coercive campaign literature.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no prima facie case of intimidation or coercion under sections 70 and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also declined to order a new representation vote, concluding that the campaign propaganda, even if exaggerated or false, did not undermine the reliability of the secret ballot.