3 total
Judicial review application quashed; university compensation decision lacks sufficient public law dimension for Divisional Court jurisdiction.
The University of Ottawa brought a motion to set aside a decision finding that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review brought by the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa.
The Association sought to challenge the compensation paid to two non-unionized employees, arguing it violated wage restraints under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010.
The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the application, holding that the compensation decision was essentially a private employment matter lacking the requisite public law dimension for judicial review.
Motion to quash judicial review of university executive pay increases during statutory wage freeze dismissed.
The university brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a faculty association.
The association sought to challenge the university's decision to increase the compensation of two senior administrators during a statutory wage freeze under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act.
The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the compensation decision had a sufficient public element to be subject to judicial review, that the association had public interest standing, and that it was not plain and obvious that the Act barred the application.
Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance arbitration proceeding.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent university for failing to nominate him for a Canada Research Chair.
Prior to the application, the applicant filed a consolidated grievance addressing the same allegations.
The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.
Finding that the grievance dealt with the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.
