Nicole Jennifer Butt

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interlocutory decision finding that the employer engaged in prima facie discrimination by denying a creed-based exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of prematurity, as the arbitrator had bifurcated the hearing and had not yet determined whether the employer could accommodate the grievor without undue hardship.

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify departing from the general rule against fragmenting ongoing administrative proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed her complaint against her union, the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA).

The applicant alleged the ONA failed in its duty to accommodate her disability.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, as neither the employer nor the union knew of the disability prior to termination, and the employer subsequently refused to consider reinstatement.

The court confirmed that a union cannot be found to impede accommodation efforts when the employer makes no such efforts.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against four long-term care (LTC) facilities experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, alleging breaches of Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Directives regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control.

The ONA contended that the facilities failed to provide necessary PPE, particularly N95 masks, and implement appropriate administrative controls like isolating and cohorting residents and staff.

The facilities argued they complied with directives and that the ONA sought control over scarce resources.

The court found that the matter, though a labour dispute, required the court's inherent jurisdiction due to the inability to expedite arbitral processes.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm to nurses and residents.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, prioritizing health and safety.

The court ordered the LTC facilities to provide nurses with access to N95 respirators and other appropriate PPE based on point-of-care assessment and to implement administrative controls as per CMOH Directives.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that upheld the termination of a registered nurse for stealing narcotics from the respondent hospital.

The nurse suffered from a drug addiction.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable because he failed to properly consider whether the hospital engaged in indirect discrimination by terminating the nurse rather than accommodating her disability.

The arbitrator improperly equated the nurse's guilty plea to criminal theft with voluntary behaviour in the human rights context, applying a higher standard of causation than required.

The court set aside the arbitration award and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator to determine the issue of indirect discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent hospital.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the grievance did not capture all issues and could be held in abeyance.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the grievance were largely identical to those in the application and deferred the application to avoid concurrent legal proceedings and duplicative use of resources.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award which found it had violated the Collective Agreement by changing a registered nurse's status from full-time to part-time.

To accommodate her disability, the nurse worked half her hours in her previous bargaining unit position and half in a non-bargaining unit administrative position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction and that his interpretation of the Collective Agreement, in light of the employer's duty to accommodate, was reasonable.