Michael J. Kennedy

The respondent, a union president, commenced a representative action claiming the appellant employer failed to provide employees with their share of employment insurance premium reductions under the Employment Insurance Act.

The employer moved to dismiss the action, arguing exclusive jurisdiction lay with a labour arbitrator.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, relying on previous case law.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by not properly applying the Supreme Court's decisions in Weber and Parry Sound.

The Court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement, as informed by the substantive rights in the Employment Insurance Act, giving an arbitrator exclusive jurisdiction.

The appeal was allowed and the action stayed.

The defendant university brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's representative action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and the dispute should be resolved by a labour arbitrator.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to share savings from the Employment Insurance Premium Reduction Program with employees.

The court applied the Weber test and found that the essential character of the dispute did not arise from the collective agreement, but rather from the defendant's alleged failure to comply with the Employment Insurance Act.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to add the Attorney General of Canada as a party defendant to an action against the University of Windsor regarding employment insurance premium reductions.

The appellant sought to assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and negligence against the proposed defendant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant had not pleaded a tenable cause of action.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application alleging workplace reprisal, arguing that an internal investigation was ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation is not an independent decision-making process that could lead to inconsistent findings, and noting that the investigation had been proceeding slowly without union involvement.

The application was directed to proceed to mediation.

The applicant sought judicial review of four decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had dismissed his complaint of disability discrimination against his former employer and union.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions, finding it reasonable to bar re-litigation of facts decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rejecting allegations of bias, and finding no denial of procedural fairness in refusing late document production.

The Court also found the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the applicant's termination was based on misconduct, not disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because a concurrent grievance dealing with the same issues was already proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant's union and the respondents supported the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding a significant risk of inconsistent findings of fact and duplication of resources if the application proceeded concurrently with the grievance.

The appellant commenced an action in negligence against her husband's employer for damages arising from his alleged wrongful dismissal.

The husband was a unionized employee whose grievance had been settled under a collective agreement.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim based on the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that any claim related to the employment should have been pursued under the collective agreement and the appellant had no independent cause of action.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their Rule 21 motion, which argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' claims arose under a collective agreement.

Prior to hearing the merits, the Court of Appeal raised the issue of its own jurisdiction.

The Court concluded the motion judge's order was interlocutory, as it did not finally decide whether an arbitrator or the trial judge should determine the arbitrability of the claims.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction and quashed the appeal.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an application alleging that union leaders and organizations breached section 83 of the Labour Relations Act by encouraging protesters to picket TTC sites during the 'Days of Protest', which would cause TTC employees to engage in an unlawful strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that verbal statements constitute 'acts' under section 83 and that the provision's restriction on Charter rights of expression and assembly is demonstrably justified.

The Board concluded that two union leaders breached the Act and issued cease and desist orders restricting picketing at TTC access points to ensure employees could work, while dismissing the application against a third leader and the organizations.

A dissenting member argued that section 83 should not apply to political speech and that the restrictions were not justified under the Charter.