Sunil Kapur

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to enforce a non-competition clause against a former software developer who resigned to work for a competitor.

The defendants brought cross-motions seeking a declaration that the clause was void.

The court found the matter appropriate for partial summary judgment.

The court held that the non-competition clause was overly broad in its scope of prohibited activities, geographic scope, and temporal scope, and was ambiguous.

The clause was declared unreasonable, unenforceable, and void ab initio.

The Court considered an appeal arising during an indefinite strike by members of Les avocats et notaires de l’État québécois, where an adjournment request had been refused as part of an essential-services context.

By the hearing date, the strike had ended and a special statute had required a return to work.

The Court held the issue was moot and dismissed the appeal without costs.

It stated that dismissing the appeal did not endorse either the process used or the validity of the considerations identified by the Court of Appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his employer discriminated against him based on his ancestry when he was disciplined and terminated.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own belief to connect the disciplinary actions and termination to his ancestry.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant appealed two orders dismissing and adjourning its application for an interpretation of an Ontario Regulation regarding the 2008 remuneration of Justices of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the proper mechanism to challenge the government's response to a remuneration commission's recommendation is through judicial review on a standard of rationality, not by seeking an interpretation of the implementing Regulation.

The Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario brought an application seeking a declaration regarding the appropriate salary indexing adjustment for the 2008-2009 salary year.

The court had previously adjourned the application to allow the government time to respond to the Remuneration Commission's recommendation.

After the government provided its response, the court dismissed the application, holding that the appropriate remedy was now judicial review of the government's decision based on the standard of simple rationality.

The grievor, a long-term employee, applied for the position of Building Code Advisor in three separate job competitions.

He was screened out of the first competition and unsuccessful in the subsequent two.

The union grieved, arguing that the grievor was relatively equal to the successful candidates and should have been awarded the position based on seniority.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while there were flaws in the competitions, such as failing to consider the grievor's personnel file and work samples, the union failed to prove that the grievor met the minimum standard set by the employer or was relatively equal to the successful candidates.

The grievances were dismissed.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to make an order under the Employment Standards Act.

At the hearing, the applicant withdrew the appeal.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the appropriate remedy for a grievor who was unjustly dismissed in 1989.

The Board awarded the grievor his wages and Custodial Responsibility Allowance for the period from his dismissal until he began receiving long-term disability benefits.

The Board also ordered an adjustment to the grievor's pension entitlements to reflect the lost wages, compound interest at 13.5% on the amounts awarded, and a tax gross-up for any additional income taxes incurred due to receiving a lump sum payment.

The grievor's claim for a top-up of his long-term disability benefits was dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement by failing to comply with the Enhanced Accountability Framework (EAF), a memorandum of agreement regarding employment equity.

The Employer argued the EAF was no longer in effect following the repeal of the Employment Equity Act and notice given during bargaining.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer provided clear and timely notice during 1995 bargaining that the EAF was nullified, which brought the estoppel enforcing the agreement to an end.

Three employers applied for judicial review of arbitration awards that reinstated employees who had been discharged following criminal convictions for sexual assault in the workplace.

In each case, the arbitrators had allowed the unions to collaterally attack the criminal convictions and had concluded the employees were innocent.

The Divisional Court granted the applications and quashed the arbitration awards, holding that a criminal conviction cannot be collaterally attacked at a subsequent arbitration.

The doctrine of abuse of process prevents an arbitrator from retrying a criminal case and treating a conviction as merely prima facie evidence.

In a labour appeal from a Divisional Court order quashing an arbitration award, the appellant union argued that the arbitration board had adequately resolved the retroactivity issue arising from the repeal of a statutory provision governing appointment to a provincial schools authority.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that determination of retroactivity was essential to disposition of the grievance and that the board failed to address all relevant considerations.

The appeal was therefore dismissed and the matter remained remitted to the board for redetermination of retroactivity.

A dissent would have found the board's reasons, read as a whole, sufficient to decide the issue and would have reinstated the award.

The grievors, Schedule 6 managers, sought compensation for time spent on standby during the 1996 OPSEU strike.

They filed their grievances 18 months after the strike ended.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that Order-in-Council 2161/90 did not provide standby pay for Schedule 6 employees, and there was insufficient evidence of a clear promise by the employer to pay them.

The Board also held that the 18-month delay in filing the grievances was unjustified, despite the grievors' belief that they would eventually be compensated.

The grievances were dismissed on both the merits and timeliness.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that included secretaries to judges in a union bargaining unit.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, holding that the Board erred in its interpretation of judicial independence.

The majority found that including judicial secretaries in the bargaining unit created an inevitable conflict of interest, as they are integral to the administrative independence and confidential functions of the judiciary.