7 total
The court declared the self-represented plaintiff a person under disability and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.
The defendants, Manulife Financial and Accenture Inc., brought a motion to declare the plaintiff a person under disability for the purpose of the action and to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as his litigation guardian.
The plaintiff, who was self-represented, opposed the motion, asserting his capacity to manage the litigation.
The court reviewed the plaintiff's medical records, his own statements regarding his mental health, and his litigation conduct, which included refusing disability benefit payments based on conspiracy theories and an inability to understand legal implications.
The court found the plaintiff to be mentally incapable with respect to the issues in the litigation and appointed the PGT as his litigation guardian, emphasizing that this finding was limited to his litigation capacity and not a general finding of incapacity.
Court lacks jurisdiction over collective agreement disability dispute; claim also statute‑barred.
The moving parties sought dismissal of a civil action brought by a former employee claiming damages relating to unpaid short‑term disability benefits and alleged breach of a settlement agreement.
The court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation and administration of a collective agreement governing employment benefits.
Under the Labour Relations Act, such disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration.
The court further held that even if jurisdiction existed, the claim was statute‑barred because the plaintiff knew or ought to have known by February 2009 that the benefits would not be paid, yet did not commence the action until June 2011.
The action was dismissed and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.
Application for judicial review of preliminary tribunal ruling quashed as premature.
The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the arbitrability of a grievance.
The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, applying the general rule that courts will not entertain judicial review of preliminary rulings while tribunal proceedings are pending, absent exceptional circumstances.
The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify bifurcating the ruling from the merits.
Arbitration award reinstating teacher set aside due to failure to make factual findings and applying incorrect harassment test.
The employer school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been discharged for inappropriate behaviour towards a female colleague.
The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the award, finding that the arbitrator made several fundamental errors.
Specifically, the arbitrator failed to make critical findings of fact regarding the allegations, improperly applied a subjective test for harassment that required intent, and failed to ask whether the proven inappropriate conduct constituted just cause for discipline even if it did not amount to harassment.
The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.
Application for judicial review dismissed; Arbitrator's interpretation that metatarsal safety boots were not an exceptional working condition was reasonable.
The applicant union sought judicial review of a Labour Arbitrator's decision interpreting a collective agreement provision on protective clothing.
The employer required metatarsal safety boots, which the union argued constituted an 'exceptional' working condition obligating the employer to provide them.
The Arbitrator found the requirement was merely an enhanced safety policy, not an exceptional working condition.
Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Dunsmuir, the Divisional Court held that the Arbitrator's contextual interpretation fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Arbitrator was not functus officio and could correct an award made without hearing submissions.
Canada Post sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision to change the cut-off date for calculating damages in a prior award, arguing the arbitrator was functus officio.
The arbitrator had initially set the date without hearing submissions, leading to a mistaken belief of facts.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's initial failure to allow submissions amounted to a denial of natural justice.
Therefore, the arbitrator had the power and duty to revisit the issue and correct the error, falling within a recognized exception to the functus officio doctrine.
Judicial review of arbitrator's decision reversing employee suspension dismissed; factual findings not patently unreasonable.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reversing a two-week suspension imposed on an employee for fighting.
The arbitrator found that the employee had not engaged in a fight, preferring the employee's viva voce evidence over written statements filed by the employer.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's factual findings were not patently unreasonable and that the arbitrator correctly held the employer to the specific grounds assigned for discipline.
