4 total
Arbitrator's blanket ban on vaccine-related discipline was unreasonable, but premature termination justified reinstating hospital workers.
The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated two employees terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The arbitrator had ruled that an employer can never discipline an employee for refusing to consent to medical treatment.
The Divisional Court found this conclusion unreasonable, as it failed to balance the hospital's duty to protect patients against the employees' privacy interests in the context of a pandemic.
However, the court upheld the arbitrator's ultimate decision to reinstate the employees, noting that terminating them after only two weeks of unpaid leave was premature.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review of OLRB certification dismissed; Board reasonably found single-division bargaining unit appropriate.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent employees within only one division of the company.
The employer argued the Board unreasonably departed from practice by certifying a unit within a division that is not a legal entity, and ignored serious labour relations harm.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably applied the principle that a union's proposed unit will be granted unless it causes serious labour relations problems, and reasonably concluded the employer failed to demonstrate such harm.
Court orders further service on respondents who failed to attend case conference for contempt application.
The applicant brought a stated case from the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking a finding of contempt against the respondents.
The respondents failed to attend a case management teleconference despite being served.
The court ordered the applicant to take further steps to serve the respondents, including personal service on the corporate directors and the personal respondent, and directed the OLRB to appear at the next case conference due to the unusual delay since the case was stated in 2020.
Defamation action dismissed as the OLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from union displacement campaigns.
The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against the defendants regarding statements made during a union organizing drive where the plaintiffs sought to displace the incumbent union.
The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21.01(3)(a), arguing the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction.
Applying the Weber analysis, the court determined the essential character of the dispute concerned alleged misrepresentations during a displacement campaign, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OLRB under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.
