Lewis Gottheil

The Minister of Education brought a Stated Case asking the Divisional Court to determine whether the Education Act permits school boards to pay for life insurance and health benefits for retired employees over 65 years of age.

The Minister argued that the Act only permits payments to current employees and that specific statutory authority is required for such expenditures.

The Court held that while ss. 177(3) and 177(4) do not authorize these payments, other sections of the Act, including ss. 58.5(1), 170(1)18, 171(1)3, and 177(1), when read together and in context, provide the necessary authority.

The Court found that school boards have the power to negotiate and pay for post-retirement benefits as part of employee compensation packages.

The proposed interveners, two unions, brought motions for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review concerning the payment of post-retirement benefits by a school board.

The judicial review was scheduled to be heard immediately after a related Stated Case in which both proposed interveners were already participating.

The court dismissed one union's motion to intervene, finding it could efficiently make its arguments in the Stated Case proceeding without prolonging the judicial review.

However, the court added the other union as a responding party because it was a joint signatory to the collective agreement at issue in the underlying arbitration.

The appellant employer appealed decisions of the Financial Services Tribunal ordering a partial windup of its pension plan following a plant closure.

The Tribunal found that a reorganization had occurred prior to the closure and included employees laid off during that period in the windup group.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's determination that a reorganization occurred and its definition of the windup group were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court also upheld the Tribunal's jurisdictional rulings regarding the Superintendent's authority.

The applicant sought judicial review of four decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had dismissed his complaint of disability discrimination against his former employer and union.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions, finding it reasonable to bar re-litigation of facts decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rejecting allegations of bias, and finding no denial of procedural fairness in refusing late document production.

The Court also found the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the applicant's termination was based on misconduct, not disability.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed grievances filed by the respondent union.

The arbitrator had found that employees laid off for more than 35 weeks could concurrently elect to receive severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and claim retirement benefits under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding her interpretation of the collective agreement and treatment of arbitral jurisprudence to be intelligible, transparent, and justified.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award dismissing a grievance for severance pay for employees following a plant closure.

The arbitrator ruled that the employees were not eligible for severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 because they received pension benefits that fell within the statutory exemption.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the legislation, including her consideration of the Pension Benefits Act and use of commuted values to compare pension benefits, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant First Nation enacted its own labour relations code after a union was certified to represent workers at a casino located on its reserve.

The appellant argued that its code displaced the provincial Labour Relations Act based on its aboriginal and treaty rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish an aboriginal practice, custom, or tradition that supported the right to enact a labour relations code.

The Court also held that the Crown did not breach its duty to consult and accommodate, as the appellant's claim was not sufficiently credible and the appellant had taken unilateral action.

The appellant police officer was charged with major offences under the Code of Offences under the Police Act.

He objected that the presiding officer did not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal as required by section 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Wigglesworth to hold that section 11 of the Charter does not apply to police disciplinary proceedings because they are neither criminal in nature nor involve true penal consequences.