Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that 23 employees were eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan payments.

The arbitrator found that a 'temporary lay-off' under the SUB Plan was equivalent to the period employees retained recall rights under the collective agreement.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and SUB Plan was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant Police Services Board sought judicial review of an arbitration award granting a police officer indemnification for legal costs incurred defending a criminal charge.

The officer had been acquitted of criminal charges but pled guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for breaching a directive during the same incident.

The arbitrator found the officer was attempting to perform his duties in good faith when the events giving rise to the criminal charge occurred, despite the breach of the directive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision resolving a work jurisdiction dispute over stone masonry work on a construction project.

The Board had ordered the subcontractor to assign the work to the respondent union based on collective bargaining agreement obligations.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board's consideration of the employer's identity, local area practices, and the general contractor's non-party status was rational and supported by evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The City of Ottawa applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that the City failed to provide uninterrupted eating periods to paramedics, contrary to the Employment Standards Act.

The City argued that the collective agreement provided a greater benefit by paying for all eating periods and using best efforts to keep them uninterrupted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's conclusion that the collective agreement did not provide a greater benefit than the statutory right to time off was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision calculating his pre-accident earnings based on his actual hourly wage of $20.00 rather than the $25.20 rate mandated by his union's collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied a patent unreasonableness standard of review, given the Tribunal's specialized expertise and the strong privative clause.

The Court held that the Tribunal's task under the pre-1997 Workers' Compensation Act was to determine actual earnings, not what ought to have been paid, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the collective agreement.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying accidental death and 'killed in the line of duty' benefits to the estate of a firefighter who died of renal cancer caused by occupational exposure to toxic substances.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's application of common law insurance principles to conclude the death was not accidental was incorrect and rendered the decision patently unreasonable.

The Court found that the firefighter's death from an occupational illness was unexpected and not caused solely by natural causes, thus qualifying as an accidental death and occurring in the line of duty.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the employer was ordered to pay the benefits.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee's refusal to follow a directive to go to a hospital emergency department.

The arbitrator found that under s. 33(1) of the Act, the employee had the right to make the initial choice of health professional, and that the 'obey now, grieve later' rule did not apply because grieving later would be meaningless.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the statute correct and the application of the 'obey now, grieve later' exception reasonable.

The Union brought a motion to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court, who had dismissed the Union's motion to strike an affidavit filed by the City of Hamilton on an application for judicial review.

The underlying judicial review challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's certification of the Union.

The Divisional Court panel allowed the motion in part, holding that while affidavit evidence regarding notice was admissible to establish a denial of natural justice, the remaining paragraphs containing evidence not before the Board must be struck out in accordance with the Keeprite principle.

The applicant, who has moderate hearing loss, applied to be a firefighter but failed the hearing test without his hearing aid.

The City of Toronto declined to hire him after an expert audiologist concluded he could not safely perform the duties even with a hearing aid.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint, which the Ontario Human Rights Commission declined to refer to the Tribunal, finding the hearing standard was a bona fide occupational requirement and the applicant had been individually assessed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review, holding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The respondents in an application for judicial review brought a motion to compel the applicant's affiants to re-attend cross-examinations to answer questions regarding their personal financial positions.

The applicant employer had sought judicial review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay wages, claiming impecuniosity to avoid the statutory requirement to pay the order amount into trust.

The court ordered the affiants to answer the questions so the judicial review panel would have a complete record to determine relevance.

The court also ordered the applicant to serve the affected employees with the notice of application.

The respondent employee accepted a severance package and signed a full and final release of all claims against the applicant employers.

She subsequently filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the release did not bar her complaint because the employers had not complied with the Act prior to the release.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that parties may contract out of the Pay Equity Act when settling a claim, and the unequivocal release barred the employee's complaint.

The Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions.

The OLRB had certified a union for employees at a casino located on the First Nation's reserve.

The First Nation subsequently passed its own Labour Relations Code and argued that it superseded the provincial Labour Relations Act, 1995, based on aboriginal and treaty rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the OLRB's findings that it had jurisdiction to decide the constitutional question and that the First Nation failed to establish an aboriginal or treaty right to regulate labour relations.

The court also found that the OLRB's procedural rulings were not patently unreasonable.

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) which reinstated a police officer who had been terminated by a Hearing Officer.

The officer, who developed a cocaine addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder while working undercover, had pled guilty to drug possession and disciplinary charges.

The employer and the officer had presented a joint submission on penalty proposing reinstatement with strict conditions, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of termination.

OCCPS found the Hearing Officer's decision unreasonable and substituted the joint submission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Chief of Police's appeal, holding that OCCPS correctly applied the reasonableness standard of review and reasonably concluded that the Hearing Officer ignored relevant evidence and the employer's duty to accommodate the officer's disability.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had found that the employee's acceptance of four months' severance pay did not constitute accord and satisfaction, as the Employment Standards Act payment was not issued separately.

The trial judge also declined to reduce the notice period for failure to mitigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions on these issues of mixed fact and law to be reasonable and well-supported by the evidence.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision reversing a two-week suspension imposed on an employee for fighting.

The arbitrator found that the employee had not engaged in a fight, preferring the employee's viva voce evidence over written statements filed by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's factual findings were not patently unreasonable and that the arbitrator correctly held the employer to the specific grounds assigned for discipline.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral decision regarding a policy grievance on contracting out.

The arbitrator found that a worker provided by an agency was not an employee of the applicant, but nevertheless concluded by analogy that the worker could not work for the applicant for more than two weeks under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and effectively amended the collective agreement by creating a third class of worker.

The court held the decision was patently unreasonable as it conflicted with the express provision allowing contracting out.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which declined to use its reconsideration powers under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to consolidate 11 bargaining units into two.

The Divisional Court applied the functional and pragmatic approach, determining the standard of review to be patent unreasonableness due to the presence of a strong privative clause and the Board's specialized expertise.

The Court found that the Board's decision to leave the restructuring of bargaining units to the parties once a collective agreement is in place was rational and consistent with long-standing jurisprudence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer facing disciplinary charges, sought judicial review of the hearing officer's refusal to recuse himself.

The applicant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of personal bias because the hearing officer had a close working relationship with a key prosecution witness and had permitted the applicant to be cross-examined about his pending charges while testifying in an unrelated disciplinary matter.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the hearing officer's actions in the unrelated matter compromised his ability to fairly assess the applicant's credibility and effectively deprived the applicant of his statutory right to silence under the Police Services Act.

The hearing officer's decision was quashed and the matter remitted for the appointment of a new hearing officer.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated an employee who was terminated for absenteeism while incarcerated.

The arbitrator found that the employer acted unreasonably in terminating the employee rather than imposing a less onerous penalty, such as an unpaid suspension, under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and his conclusion that the employer must act reasonably were not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of two awards by the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board regarding the divestment of young offender facilities.

The Board found the applicant breached the collective agreement by failing to require new operators to recognize employees' seniority, and awarded a blanket monetary remedy to all affected employees based on years of service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's collective remedy was appropriate and reasonable in the labour relations context, despite the applicant's argument that individual losses should have been assessed.