Michael Andrew Hines

The Equal Pay Coalition brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a judicial review of a decision by the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The underlying application concerned whether the employer failed to maintain compensation practices providing for pay equity.

The employer opposed the intervention, arguing the Coalition would not make a useful contribution and would duplicate the union's submissions.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding the Coalition could bring a broader perspective and constructive contribution to the issues, particularly regarding international conventions and the relationship between the Pay Equity Act and the Human Rights Code.

The intervention was granted subject to strict limits on the Coalition's participation.

Following an oral decision allowing the appeal, the successful appellant sought its costs at trial, which it had requested in its written materials but omitted from its oral costs submissions.

The Court of Appeal issued a supplementary endorsement granting the appellant its costs at trial, to be assessed if not agreed.

The respondent was awarded damages at trial for breach of contract after the trial judge found he had accepted an unconditional offer for an early retirement severance package.

The appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in construing the severance plan documents as an unconditional offer.

The Court held that an objective reasonable person in the respondent's position would not have understood the documents to make an unconditional offer, especially since the respondent knew he was being replaced and the program was for workforce reduction.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a grievance over the workload of Special Education Resource Teachers (SERTs).

The union grieved that the board failed to provide course credit for monitoring activities.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance but issued a declaration that the board violated the collective agreement by assigning 'indirect monitoring' to be done during planning and preparation time.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the declaration, finding that the arbitrator's conclusion was unreasonable, not sought by either party, and contrary to the historical mutual understanding of the teaching process.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award ordering the pre-hearing production of a grievor's psychiatric records from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The applicant argued that under section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act, only the Divisional Court could order such production.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the legislation, finding that section 35(5) permits pre-hearing disclosure of mental health records pursuant to a summons or order without requiring a section 35(9) determination, which applies to the admission of evidence at a hearing.

However, the Court found the arbitrator's order was over-broad and amended it to limit the scope of records and require initial disclosure only to the arbitrator to assess relevance and privacy interests.

The applicant Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitration award granting a police officer indemnification for legal costs incurred defending a criminal charge.

The officer had been acquitted of criminal charges but pled guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for breaching a directive during the same incident.

The arbitrator found the officer was attempting to perform his duties in good faith when the events giving rise to the criminal charge occurred, despite the breach of the directive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable.

The applicant, a former police officer, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with his discrimination complaint.

The applicant had resigned pursuant to an agreement to withdraw disciplinary charges, but filed a human rights complaint after failing to secure employment with another police force and being denied reinstatement.

The Commission dismissed the complaint as vexatious under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable given the applicant's extensive disciplinary record and the circumstances surrounding his resignation.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance regarding supplemental unemployment benefits.

The collective agreement provided top-up benefits during parental leave to adoptive parents but not to biological parents.

The union argued this violated the Human Rights Code and s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitration board's decision, finding that the provision responded to the special needs of adoptive parents and did not undermine the human dignity of biological parents, who are not a historically disadvantaged group.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding that its continued use of freelance columnists and reporters violated the collective agreement to the financial detriment of a laid-off editorial employee who had bumped into a lower-paying reporter position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review.

While acknowledging the employer's argument that the arbitrator's broad interpretation could lead to absurd results in other contexts, the court held that the interpretation was based on the plain meaning of the words and was not clearly irrational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a probationary police constable, sought judicial review of the police services board's decision to terminate his employment.

He argued the board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to require witnesses to give evidence under oath or allow cross-examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under section 44(3) of the Police Services Act, the board was acting as an employer exercising an administrative function.

The Court held that the board was not clearly wrong or unreasonable in exercising its discretion not to take evidence under oath or permit cross-examination, given the circumstances and the information already before it.

The Union applied for judicial review of an arbitration board decision that dismissed its grievances concerning contracting out and refused to issue a single employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board did not deny natural justice by refusing further document production, and that its decisions on the single employer issue and the interpretation of the collective agreement were not patently unreasonable.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a board of inquiry's pre-hearing disclosure order.

The board had ordered the complainant, who alleged discrimination based on a physical handicap, to produce various medical, workers' compensation, and pension files, as well as a list of all other treating medical practitioners.

The Court of Appeal held that the board had the authority to order the complainant to provide an affidavit of documents for the specified files, allowing for claims of privilege and irrelevance to be adjudicated.

However, the Court found that the board exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the complainant to provide a list of all other treating doctors and their treatments without any relevance screening, as this unjustifiably infringed her privacy rights.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside that specific paragraph of the board's order.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, which created a new governance and funding model for Ontario school boards.

The appellants argued the legislation violated denominational education rights under s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 by removing local taxation powers and limiting financial control.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation did not prejudicially affect denominational rights, as it only regulated secular aspects of education and provided fair and equitable funding.

The Court also held that the delegation of taxation powers to the Minister of Finance was constitutional as it was express and unambiguous.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought an application for judicial review of an interim decision made by the Board of Inquiry regarding the production of records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify fragmenting the ongoing hearing before the Board.

The Court held that the Board's decision was a reasonable exercise of its discretion at a preliminary stage, particularly in applying the balancing test from A.M. v. Ryan and considering the confidentiality undertaking in place.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent employer against the Commission.