Michael Andrew Hines

This appeal concerned whether public school teachers are protected from unreasonable search and seizure by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the search is performed in the workplace by their employers.

The case involved a school principal reading and taking screenshots of a private, password-protected log maintained by two teachers on their personal Google account, accessed via a workplace laptop, which was then used by the school board for disciplinary action.

The Court of Appeal found that the labour relations arbitrator and the Divisional Court erred in their interpretation and application of section 8, concluding that the teachers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their log, which was violated by the principal's actions.

The appeal was allowed, and the arbitrator's award was quashed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding kindergarten class sizes.

The arbitrator had interpreted O. Reg. 132/12 under the Education Act as requiring class size caps to be determined only on a specified date in September, allowing sizes to fluctuate thereafter.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation, based on the text, context, and purpose of the regulation, was internally coherent and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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The employee was charged with domestic assault, though the charges were later withdrawn.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 applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance over a school principal's search of a classroom laptop.

Two teachers had maintained a private log documenting their complaints about colleagues on a personal Google account accessed via the school computer.

The principal discovered the log when he touched the mousepad of the open laptop after hours.

The arbitrator found the teachers had a diminished expectation of privacy and the principal had reasonable cause to search under his duty to maintain order under the Education Act.

The Divisional Court (majority) dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the application, finding the search disproportionately impaired the teachers' section 8 Charter rights.

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.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision on an appeal of a wrongful dismissal case.

The appellant insurance company sought to reduce the respondent employee's damages by challenging the reasonable notice period and bonus entitlements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the notice period but dismissing other arguments.

The respondent sought clarification on bonus entitlements and the parties exchanged submissions on costs.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments raised by the appellant at the costs stage and awarded costs to the respondent.

A senior vice president with 37 years of service was terminated without cause following a minor dispute over promotional sporting event tickets.

The motion judge awarded 30 months' notice and full bonus entitlements during the notice period.

On appeal, the employer challenged both the notice period and the bonus entitlement.

The Court of Appeal reduced the notice period to 24 months, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a longer period.

However, the court upheld the bonus entitlement, finding that while the termination provision in the bonus plans was unambiguous and would have limited the employee's entitlement, the provision was unenforceable because it was not properly communicated to the employee by the employer.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) decisions reinstating two Transit Safety Officers who were discharged for misconduct.

The GSB had found that the employer breached a sunset clause by considering expired disciplinary records when deciding to terminate the employees.

Relying on the Molson's case, the GSB concluded it was bound to void the discipline entirely and reinstate the employees with full compensation.

The Divisional Court granted the applications for judicial review, holding that the GSB erred by failing to consider all relevant circumstances before applying Molson's and by failing to consider its statutory discretion to substitute a penalty under s. 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act.

The decisions were quashed and remitted to the GSB.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) that adjourned an appeal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature.

The court held that the OLRB's decision was an interlocutory adjournment and did not constitute a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of an interim administrative decision.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision that found the school board failed to accommodate him but denied his claim for special damages covering private school tuition.

The Divisional Court held that while it was reasonable to deny tuition costs for subsequent years because the parent removed the student from the public system without giving the board a further chance to accommodate, it was unreasonable to deny tuition costs for the remainder of the Grade 9 year when the board had completely failed to provide support.

The application was granted in part and remitted to the Tribunal to assess special damages for the Grade 9 year.

The court held a multi-stage pre-trial conference in a defamation action to ensure an efficient and organized trial.

The judge expressed concern about the plaintiffs' ability to prove damages commensurate with the litigation costs and the lengthy delay since publication.

Directions were issued to streamline the trial process, including requiring evidence in chief by affidavit (except for one plaintiff), exchanging expert reports, facilitating expert meetings, and mandating the use of video conferencing for most foreign witnesses to reduce costs and delays.

Following dismissal of a motion to extend an interim injunction relating to demolition of a historic school building and the discontinuance of a related judicial review application, a respondent school board sought costs against the applicant.

The applicant argued he was a public interest litigant acting to preserve a heritage building under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs against public interest litigants and applied factors including lack of personal financial interest, the broader public importance of heritage preservation, and the litigant’s good‑faith conduct.

The court concluded the applicant qualified as a public interest litigant and had not acted vexatiously or abusively.

Consistent with the usual approach in public interest litigation, the court declined to order costs.

The Toronto Chief of Police issued an order requiring suspended officers to report twice daily at police headquarters.

The Toronto Police Association filed a policy grievance challenging the reasonableness of the order.

The arbitrator concluded the order was not arbitrable as it fell within the Chief's exclusive statutory authority over operational matters.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Board's appeal, agreeing that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Police Services Act and the collective agreement was unreasonable, particularly her failure to apply established jurisprudence regarding the balance between management rights and working conditions.

The respondent school board sought $60,000 in partial indemnity costs following the dismissal of the applicants' application for judicial review regarding a school closure.

The applicants argued they should be shielded from costs as public interest litigants, or alternatively that costs should be fixed at $15,000.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest immunity argument, noting the applicants acted partly in self-interest and adopted a 'no holds barred' approach that increased costs.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs payable to the respondent at $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to close two secondary schools and build a new one, alleging procedural unfairness, lack of statutory authority, and unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board substantially complied with the Ministry's school closure guidelines and its own policies.

The court held that the public consultation process was meaningful and that the failure to disclose certain confidential student survey data did not breach the duty of procedural fairness, as it did not prejudice the applicants' ability to participate.

A police officer was ordered dismissed in seven days unless he resigned before that time, pursuant to s. 68(1)(b) of the Police Services Act.

The officer submitted his resignation on the seventh day.

An arbitrator ruled the resignation was ineffective, denying the officer his accumulated sick pay credits.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the statutory time period was both reasonable and correct.

The application was dismissed.

The Toronto Police Association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that a twice-daily reporting requirement for suspended police officers was outside the scope of arbitral review.

The arbitrator had concluded the requirement was an operational matter within the exclusive authority of the Chief of Police.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, holding that the reporting requirement for suspended officers is a working condition subject to the collective agreement and the supervisory powers of the Police Services Board.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the matter remitted for a decision on the merits.

Following an application for judicial review involving the interpretation of the Pay Equity Act and the Human Rights Code, the successful respondent sought costs of $47,506.45 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a lower quantum of $10,000 based on expectations in the labour relations community.

The Divisional Court found the respondent's request exceeded reasonable expectations but acknowledged the importance of the case, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $20,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed applications by the unions to eliminate different rates of progression through the wage grids of comparable male and female job classes, holding that the Pay Equity Act does not require the harmonization of wage grids.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that its interpretation of the Act authorized a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and that the Pay Equity Act does not require or authorize a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that required it to pay educational assistants for accompanying special needs students on an overnight camping trip.

The school board argued that the employees volunteered and were not 'required' to attend under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of 'required' as 'needed' was reasonable, justified, and fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes.