Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the plaintiff damages for constructive dismissal and unpaid invoices, and finding the individual defendant personally liable.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of constructive dismissal but set aside the wrongful dismissal damages because the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence of lost income following his termination.

The court also set aside the finding of personal liability against the individual defendant, as it was not pleaded and the plaintiff had the onus to establish he contracted with the individual rather than the corporation.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for partial summary judgment.

The motion judge had found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiff's claim for unpaid bonuses was statute-barred, applying the discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, particularly given the fact-specific nature of the discoverability issue in the employment context.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision holding that a player was contractually obligated to play a third season for the respondent football club.

The union argued the contract was voidable because the club negotiated with an unregistered contract advisor, and that the club's exercise of the option year was unclear.

The court granted leave to hear the application as a single judge due to urgency.

The court found the arbitrator's decision not to void the contract was reasonable.

However, the court quashed the arbitrator's decision regarding the option year, finding that the letter sent to the player was confusing and did not clearly exercise the option.

The Service Employees International Union applied for judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a zero salary increase for the first two years of a collective agreement with 98 nursing homes.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably ignored the employers' ability to pay, mischaracterized Ontario's economy, and relied on inappropriate comparable settlements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's application of the statutory criteria under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and his ultimate award were reasonable and entitled to a high degree of deference.

The Toronto Police Association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that a twice-daily reporting requirement for suspended police officers was outside the scope of arbitral review.

The arbitrator had concluded the requirement was an operational matter within the exclusive authority of the Chief of Police.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, holding that the reporting requirement for suspended officers is a working condition subject to the collective agreement and the supervisory powers of the Police Services Board.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the matter remitted for a decision on the merits.

The applicant, a former employee, sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision that dismissed her application under the Pay Equity Act for failing to establish a prima facie case.

She argued the Tribunal made findings of fact without evidence and denied her procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable, noting the applicant failed to plead material facts challenging the pay equity plan and had ample notice that her application could be dismissed early.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

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.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision imposing a first collective agreement under the Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.

The employer argued the board exceeded its jurisdiction by implicitly treating it and a related hospital as a single employer, and that the wage and benefit increases were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board merely used the hospital as a comparator for wages and benefits, which was within its jurisdiction.

The court also held that the board's decision on wages and benefits was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of two arbitration awards dealing with return to work grievances following a strike by academic staff.

The arbitration board had concluded that the collective agreement's workload provisions did not apply and developed its own principles to award additional compensation.

The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it ignored the language of the Return to Work Protocol and the collective agreement, which did not confer jurisdiction to create new compensation criteria.

The application for judicial review was granted, the awards were quashed, and the grievances were remitted to a different arbitration board.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of the base salaries of the Chief of Police and two deputies under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the compelling public interest in transparency outweighed the limited privacy interests of the affected parties, even though their total income was already disclosed under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the adjudicator reasonably balanced the competing interests and his decision was owed deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award regarding the contracting out of hospital sterilization services, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive formal notice of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had actual notice of the hearing, its timing, and the issues in dispute, but chose not to attend.

The court also noted that the contracting out had been completed and there was no longer any tangible dispute between the parties, making judicial review inappropriate.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that stayed their action for unpaid health and welfare benefits to allow the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The dispute arose following a union raid.

The Divisional Court confirmed it had jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of the Small Claims Court but dismissed the application, agreeing that the OLRB, which has exclusive jurisdiction over labour relations issues, should first determine its jurisdiction over the matter.

The applicant, Anishinabek Police Service, sought judicial review of two arbitration awards that allowed grievances regarding an unpaid suspension and subsequent termination of a First Nations Constable to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant argued that the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process barred the arbitration because the constable's dismissal had already been adjudicated under the employer's Code of Conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the adjudicator under the Code of Conduct was not exercising a statutory function and did not make a judicial decision.

Therefore, the prior adjudication did not preclude the union from pursuing grievances under the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award ordering compensatory and punitive damages against it for organizing illegal strikes.

The union argued the collective agreement limited the arbitrator to declaratory relief for employer grievances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably interpreted the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code in concluding he had broad remedial authority to award damages.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent dental hygienist $25,000 for wrongful dismissal.

The employer had presented a new contract reserving the right to require up to 48 hours of work per week, up from the respondent's usual 32 hours.

When the respondent questioned the contract, the employer delivered a termination letter with five weeks' working notice.

The respondent left the workplace in distress, which the employer argued was a repudiation of the employment contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the employee was wrongfully dismissed, did not repudiate the contract, and was entitled to a six-month notice period.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a trial judge's order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the award fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 during the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the plaintiff's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the plaintiff's unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

The Crown appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to reimburse a former public servant for pool maintenance expenses incurred during a foreign posting in Dubai.

The Crown argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the claim was statute-barred, and the employee was bound by an Occupancy Agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Crown was estopped from relying on the statutory grievance ouster because it failed to provide the employee with the necessary grievance information.

The court also held the action was commenced within the limitation period and the Crown had implicitly accepted the employee's caveat regarding pool expenses.

The appellant appealed an order of a Master dismissing her wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The appellant argued the Master erred by measuring the delay from September 2006 and ignoring intervening factors, such as a previous order excusing delay and an amended statement of claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master properly considered the entire history of the litigation, correctly applied the law regarding inordinate and inexcusable delay, and properly found the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the dismissal of a grievor for verbally abusing a client by telling them to 'shut up'.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's conclusion that this single instance constituted 'abuse' under the collective agreement, thereby mandating discharge, was unreasonable.

The court held that while the conduct was rude, it lacked the necessary characteristics of being demeaning, insulting, humiliating, or derogatory to constitute abuse.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant, a police officer, brought an application for judicial review to prohibit a retired superintendent from continuing as an adjudicator in a disciplinary proceeding against him.

The adjudicator had previously presided over two other disciplinary hearings involving the applicant and had expressed opinions regarding his character.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that an informed person would conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the adjudicator's pre-existing knowledge of the applicant's disciplinary history.