Lisa Compagnone

Two teachers' unions sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding collective bargaining with the Crown.

The OLRB had dismissed OSSTF's claim of bad faith bargaining, finding the Crown did not misrepresent its position on grid movement grievances.

The OLRB upheld ETFO's claim of bad faith bargaining but declined to award monetary damages, instead ordering a declaration and notice to members.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed both applications, finding the OLRB's factual findings, inferences, and remedial choices were logical, transparent, and entitled to deference given its labour relations expertise.

The appellant, an Ontario public service employee, appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a pension plan amendment.

Upon promotion to a management position, the appellant transferred from the OPSEU Pension Plan to the Public Service Pension Plan.

A 2013 amendment to the OPSEU Plan eliminated the payout of 'Excess Commuted Value' upon such transfers.

The appellant argued the amendment was void under the Pension Benefits Act for reducing an accrued pension benefit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's findings that the excess payment was not a 'pension benefit' and had not 'accrued' at the time of the amendment.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that the respondent employers were not statutorily obligated to negotiate the maintenance of pay equity plans following a health services integration.

The union argued that the Pay Equity Act required mandatory bargaining for pay equity maintenance and that the Tribunal's interpretation violated the freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted the Act as placing the responsibility for maintaining pay equity solely on the employer, with the union's role limited to monitoring and filing complaints.

The Court also found that the Tribunal's decision did not disproportionately limit Charter protections.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay.

The Divisional Court acknowledged substantial delay but found the applicants' unchallenged explanations supported permitting the matter to continue.

The court noted the respondent had not demonstrated prejudice and had taken no prior steps to address the delay.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court directed the matter to proceed on the merits.