Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 129/07
DATE: 20070919
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Jennings, Gans and Coats JJ.
B E T W E E N:
ROSS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Applicant
- and -
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1909 Respondent
Counsel: Christopher G. Riggs, Q.C., for the Applicant Lyle S. R. Kanee, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: September 19, 2007
Oral Reasons for Judgment
JENNINGS J.: (Orally)
[1] The two issues put to us on this application for judicial review of an interest arbitration award are:
(i) There is no indication on the face of the decision that the Board took into account the statutory requirements of s.9(1-1) of the HLDAA; and
(ii) The Board failed to consider the replication principle.
[2] The parties are agreed that the standard of review is that of patent unreasonableness. As a preface to its award, the Board noted that it had "carefully considered all of the submissions taking account of all the relevant statutory and jurisprudential factors, particularly need and comparability and replication" (emphasis added).
[3] The members of the Board were all very experienced in labour law. They were unanimous on the issues before us.
[4] It is not the usual case in interest arbitrations where the focus is on arriving at what amounts to be a collective agreement that will govern the parties in the future, for detailed reasons to be given (See Canadian Labour Arbitration, fourth edition, p.1-1).
[5] The sole issue before the Board was the salary level for laboratory technicians. In accepting the Union's submissions that the salary should be set at rates payable to technicians working in other hospitals who are OPSEU members, the Board clearly had to consider the comparability criteria as mandated by s.9(1-1). Further, comparability is a factor in replication which the Board stated at the outset that it had considered.
[6] Although the reasons are perhaps sketchy, they are no more so than those appearing in other interest arbitration awards to which we were referred during argument. It is not suggested that a Regina v. Sheppard standard applies to interest arbitration awards. The award is based on the evidence put to the Board in the submissions of the parties. On that account, it cannot be said to be unreasonable.
[7] In arriving at this decision, we have considered and applied the decision of this Court in the City of London v. London and District Service Workers' Union, No. 758/96, unreported May 23, 2997.
[8] I endorse the back of the Application Record: "Application is dismissed for oral reasons read by Jennings J. Costs payable to the respondent fixed at $5,000, inclusive of GST and disbursements."
JENNINGS J.
GANS J.
COATS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 19, 2007
Date of Release: September 21, 2007
COURT FILE NO.: 129/07
DATE: 20070919
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Jennings, Gans and Coats JJ.
B E T W E E N:
ROSS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Applicant
- and -
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1909 Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JENNINGS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 19, 2007
Date of Release: September 21, 2007