Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The applicant, a secondary-school teacher, sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions dismissing his reprisal application under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The OLRB had dismissed the application as a collateral attack and abuse of process because the applicant had already elected to pursue the same matters through grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the OLRB did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the second application was an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already determined.

The appellant short-term rental business appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent damages for reasonable notice after finding he was a dependent contractor.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in applying the dependent contractor test and in relying on invoices rather than tax forms to establish economic exclusivity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as the documents were produced in advance, and no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the respondent's work was near-exclusive.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a related civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly analyze the distinct factual underpinnings and time periods of the two proceedings.

The application for judicial review was granted, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers that revoked her teaching certificate for professional misconduct related to off-duty social media posts.

The appellant argued the penalty ignored her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee committed a fatal error of law by failing to conduct a proper Doré analysis regarding the Charter implications of disciplining the appellant for her speech.

The matter was remitted back for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for disability-based discrimination.

The applicant alleged she was terminated after disclosing her bipolar disorder and requesting accommodations.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent employer to file a second, more detailed witness statement during the hearing without permitting the applicant to cross-examine the witness on the discrepancies between his two statements.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had concluded that his transitory ankle injury was not a disability under the Human Rights Code and applied a balance of probabilities standard to its jurisdictional screening.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal engaged in an impermissible merits review rather than a jurisdictional analysis.

The court held it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to depart from the 'plain and obvious' standard for jurisdictional screening and to fail to apply a multidimensional, socio-political analysis to the definition of disability.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his applications alleging unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and unfair labour practices under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant had been terminated after refusing to remove a social media post criticizing his employer, T&T Supermarket.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and within its jurisdiction.

The court declined to interfere with the Board's credibility findings and noted that the applicant's procedural fairness arguments should have been raised through a reconsideration request to the Board.

The applicant union (UA) sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the installation of a water-based fire suppression system.

The Board had assigned the work to the Labourers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) based on area practice, despite UA's argument that the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 (BOSTA) created exclusive jurisdiction for its members.

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

The Board reasonably concluded that BOSTA's purpose is to protect the public by determining necessary skill sets, not to override the traditional factors considered in work assignment disputes between competing unions.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision that struck the personal respondents and dismissed his human rights application at a summary hearing.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision to strike the personal respondents was reasonable, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

However, the court held the HRTO unreasonably dismissed the application by failing to justify its conclusion that there was 'no evidence' of discrimination despite the applicant's factual assertions.

Furthermore, the HRTO breached procedural fairness by ordering a summary hearing after a previous Vice-Chair had already directed a merits hearing which had commenced.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO for a merits hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application.

The applicant had alleged that his termination during his probationary period was based on sex discrimination and reprisal.

The HRTO found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no evidence connecting his termination to a protected ground.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision was logical and justified.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing his action for wrongful dismissal and vacation pay.

The trial judge found that the appellant, a courier, was an independent contractor and had abandoned his position after leaving work midday following complaints from a client and failing to return for 11 days.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings of fact, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error in determining the appellant abandoned his work and was an independent contractor.

The applicant, a town councillor, brought an application for judicial review regarding a sexual harassment investigation.

The Integrity Commissioner subsequently concluded the complaint could not be determined, rendering the application moot.

The applicant amended his application to seek a declaration of mootness and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no unusual circumstances to award costs to the applicant for a moot proceeding, and awarded $15,000 in costs to the respondent Town.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing its application to review orders to pay unpaid wages.

The Board dismissed the application because it was filed out of time and the applicant failed to pay the ordered amounts in trust.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's refusal to grant an extension of time was reasonable, noting the urgency inherent in the payment of wages to employees.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no costs.

The Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario brought an application for judicial review of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council's response to the Sixth Justices of the Peace Remuneration Commission's report.

The Association challenged the government's rejection of salary and WASH Court day recommendations, and its unilateral implementation of benefit changes.

The Divisional Court held that the government provided a rational basis for rejecting the salary and WASH Court recommendations.

However, the court found the unilateral implementation of benefit changes without independent commission consideration to be unconstitutional, quashing that part of the response and prohibiting implementation until a commission reports on the issue.

A motion by the government to set aside an interlocutory stay order was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that dismissed their claim for damages and awarded the respondent $3,500 for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The trial judge found that the appellant doctor engaged in sexually inappropriate and unprofessional conduct that caused the respondent anxiety and mental suffering.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and factual findings.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that denied his claim for a bonus payment following his termination.

The motion judge had found that the appellant had no contractual entitlement to a bonus, as the bonus plan was purely discretionary and subjective.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings, concluding that the employment offer only provided eligibility to participate in the bonus plan, not an entitlement.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's alternative calculation of the bonus quantum or the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a justice of the peace, sought judicial review of a Hearing Panel's decision removing him from office for judicial misconduct involving sexual harassment of female staff, and denying him compensation for his legal expenses.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct and the penalty of removal, finding the panel's decisions reasonable given the applicant's lack of insight and the need to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.

However, the Court set aside the decision denying compensation for legal fees, finding the panel erred by presuming that a judicial officer found guilty of misconduct should not be compensated, and remitted that issue for reconsideration.

The plaintiff sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a summary judgment decision that denied his claim for damages in lieu of bonus payments following his wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff's counsel had inadvertently missed the appeal deadline due to a misunderstanding of the rules.

Applying the test for extending time, the court found that the plaintiff had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was reasonably explained by solicitor error, there was no prejudice to the defendant, and the proposed appeal had sufficient merit.

The court granted the extension of time and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board found that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-unionized contractor, but denied an award of damages because the union suffered no loss, as only a non-union contractor was capable of performing the specialized work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on remedy was owed deference and was not outside the range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of seniority for On Call Relief Employees who become route-holding Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers.

The arbitrator found that, based on the collective agreement, seniority does not accrue during the period an employee works as an On Call Relief Employee.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that it gave meaning to all relevant provisions of the collective agreement without modifying them.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, with one judge dissenting.