Mark Wright

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's award dismissing a grievance over the respondent hospital's unilateral decision to change the designated home worksites of finance department employees following a merger.

The union argued the collective agreement's mobility clause prohibited this change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the collective agreement did not restrict the hospital's management right to transfer employees between worksites.

The court also ruled that an affidavit tendered by the union to supplement the record was inadmissible.

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed the "Student Choice Initiative" framework, which mandated an opt-out system for non-essential student ancillary fees at Ontario colleges and universities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the framework was unlawful.

For colleges, the framework conflicted with section 7 of the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002, which protects student governing bodies' normal activities.

For universities, the framework interfered with their statutory self-governance and institutional autonomy, a fundamental principle implicit in their establishing Acts.

The court clarified that the Minister's action was an exercise of executive authority, not prerogative power, and must yield to conflicting legislation.

The Member, a teacher, faced a discipline hearing for professional misconduct after he grabbed a student by the hood of his sweatshirt during recess, which had the effect of choking the student.

The Member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct, including physical abuse of a student and unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension of his teaching certificate, and the completion of an anger management course.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award regarding the interpretation of early retirement and voluntary exit provisions in a collective agreement.

The arbitration panel found that the benefits must be offered to all employees within a classification based on seniority, rejecting the hospital's past practice of offering them strictly on a full-time to full-time and part-time to part-time basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the panel's interpretation of the collective agreement and its treatment of past practice evidence were reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision overturning the transfer of an employee who had previously been disciplined for assaulting a co-worker.

The hospital argued the transfer was an administrative decision to protect the complainant under the Occupational Health & Safety Act.

The arbitrator found the transfer constituted a second penalty for the same offence, violating the principle of double jeopardy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and properly balanced the competing values of workplace safety and protection against double jeopardy.

Six groups brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal concerning the Ontario government's 'Student Choice Initiative', which allowed students to opt out of certain ancillary fees.

The underlying application quashed the government directives.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to all six groups, finding that the appeal raises issues with far-reaching impacts on publicly-funded universities and colleges, and that each proposed intervener would provide useful and distinct perspectives without causing injustice to the parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award reinstating an employee who had been dismissed for off-duty conduct.

The employee was charged with domestic assault, though the charges were later withdrawn.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably focused on actual rather than potential reputational harm and failed to properly consider the employee's prior discipline for impaired driving and alcohol consumption.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable, as the arbitrator correctly applied the test for off-duty conduct and made factual findings that the conduct did not risk harming the employer's reputation and was not attributable to intoxication.

The court held a case management teleconference to set an expedited schedule for an application for judicial review.

The court established deadlines for the application records and factums, and scheduled the hearing for December 3, 2020.

The court also encouraged the parties to agree on interim terms to avoid the necessity of a stay motion.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for a virtual hearing of an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.

The court scheduled the hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court and provided detailed instructions regarding the use of ZOOM, electronic document filing via a drop box, and the submission of factums and compendiums.

The employer applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union grievance over Accidental Death benefits.

A firefighter died of lung cancer, an occupational disease presumed work-related under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The employer's insurance carrier denied the claim based on an illness/disease exclusion clause.

The arbitrator found the collective agreement obligated the employer to provide Accidental Death benefits, which at law includes occupational diseases, and that the insurance policy's exclusion could not diminish this bargained benefit.

The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov reasonableness standard and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the insurance policy was justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicants, two student associations, sought judicial review to quash the Minister's 'Student Choice Initiative' directives, which required colleges and universities to allow students to opt out of student association fees.

The Divisional Court found the directives justiciable, rejecting the government's arguments that they were immune from review as core policy decisions or exercises of the Crown's prerogative spending power.

The Court held that the directives were unlawful because they conflicted with the statutory schemes governing colleges and universities, which protect the autonomy of universities and the normal activities of college student associations.

The application was granted and the directives were quashed.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that required it to provide long-term disability (LTD) benefits to employees working past age 65.

The collective agreement referenced a 1992 benefits booklet that did not explicitly terminate coverage at age 65, unlike the master insurance plan.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding it was a defensible interpretation of the collective agreement and consistent with arbitral jurisprudence regarding the elimination of mandatory retirement.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award between a food services contractor and a union, arguing it was denied natural justice because it was not given notice of the hearing.

The arbitrator had found the contractor violated the collective agreement by contracting out patient food services to the hospital.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the hospital's interest in the arbitration was commercial and indirect, rather than a direct legal interest that would entitle it to third-party standing and notice.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for embarrassing a student in front of the class and inappropriately squeezing a brace on the student's wrist.

The Member pled guilty to professional misconduct, admitting to verbal and psychological abuse, failing to maintain professional standards, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and requiring the Member to complete a course on appropriate boundaries before resuming any teaching position.

The Association sought an order requiring the Employer to prove the authenticity and completeness of an email record through independent third-party evidence, relying on section 34.1 of the Evidence Act.

The Arbitrator dismissed the request, finding that the Employer had provided sufficient evidence capable of supporting a finding of authenticity under section 34.1(4).

The Arbitrator also held that the best evidence rule did not apply in these circumstances, as the precise contents of the emails were not in issue, but rather the events they described.

Even if the rule applied, the Arbitrator would have exercised discretion under the Labour Relations Act to admit the secondary documents.

The applicant requested to reactivate his deferred human rights application, amend it, and expedite the hearing.

The application had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) regarding the union's decision not to proceed with his grievance.

The applicant chose to pursue an internal union appeal, which would not conclude until 2016, but refused to withdraw it to reactivate the OLRB and Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the risk of conflicting determinations remained and that the labour relations proceedings should be resolved first.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct, alleging verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse of students, as well as derogatory comments about colleagues.

The member pleaded no contest and agreed to a joint submission on resolution.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand to be recorded on the public register.

On the contested issue of publication, the Committee ordered that the summary of the decision be published without the member's name, finding that this appropriately balanced the objectives of deterrence and transparency against the member's privacy interests.

The grievor was suspended from his position at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOH) pending an investigation.

During his suspension, he was seconded to the Ministry of the Attorney-General (MAG) as an articling student.

MOH subsequently terminated his employment for cause, which automatically terminated his articles with MAG.

The union argued that the termination of his articles lacked just cause under the ALOC collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Crown is a single employer, and just cause for termination at MOH is sufficient to satisfy the just cause provisions of the ALOC collective agreement.

The grievor, an employee of the Ministry of Education, sought long-term disability benefits after going off work due to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder following a sexual assault.

The insurer denied benefits on the basis that her level of impairment was not consistent with an inability to perform her duties and that her absence was merely preventative pending the criminal trial of her assailant.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the medical documentation, including reports from her treating physicians and an independent medical evaluator, and found that her symptoms were real and her fear of failing at work again was a legitimate stressor.

The Board concluded she was unable to perform the essential duties of her position and allowed the grievance, entitling her to benefits for the disputed period.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by his employer and union regarding a job competition.

The union initially filed a grievance but later decided not to proceed, prompting the applicant to file duty of fair representation and unfair labour practice applications with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the resolution of the Board proceedings and any subsequent grievance arbitration, noting the substantial overlap of facts and issues.