Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of an employee who purchased marijuana while on duty in a City vehicle.

The union alleged the employee was disabled due to marijuana addiction and required accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the union failed to prove a disability on a balance of probabilities was reasonable, largely due to the employee's lack of credibility and uncorroborated evidence.

The applicant, TVO, sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award which found it breached a collective agreement by allowing a non-bargaining unit member to record interviews that were later posted online as podcasts.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because the recordings were originally made for research purposes, a permitted activity for non-bargaining unit members.

The court also found the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by refusing to consider the intervener union's de minimis argument.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement governing shift assignments for transit operators.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's method of assigning work on the spare board violated the agreement, interpreting provisions related to vacant shifts and wind down operators.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application.

The court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, including her reliance on past practice to resolve an ambiguity, to be defensible and reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing their application.

They argued that the Vice-Chair should have recused himself because he had previously acted as a lawyer for one of the applicants in a related matter.

The Divisional Court found that the Vice-Chair misunderstood the test for conflict of interest and the appearance of bias, as set out in Macdonald Estate v. Martin.

The court quashed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's refusal to reconsider its decision certifying the respondent union.

The employer alleged that one of the employees had not signed a union membership card.

The Board denied the reconsideration request, citing the employer's delay and the fact that the Board had already returned the membership cards to the union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that it properly considered multiple factors, including delay, prejudice, and the loss of continuity of the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award denying her independent standing in a grievance arbitration concerning her alleged breach of a settlement agreement's non-disclosure provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the union had exclusive carriage of the matter and that any complaints regarding the union's representation should be directed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Court also held that the application for judicial review was premature.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against the respondent employee on the basis of gender and reprised against her for asserting her human rights.

The employee had been disciplined for swearing, while male employees were not, and was terminated after refusing to sign a written warning she believed was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusions on discrimination, reprisal, and the award of $15,000 in general damages plus six months' lost wages were reasonable.

The applicants brought a motion for an interim stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision pending judicial review.

The applicants argued that the Board's decision lacked procedural fairness due to inadequate notice, refusal of an adjournment, improper production orders, and unconstitutional reverse onus provisions.

The court applied the three-part test for an interim stay and found that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case for review.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent union.

The applicant sought judicial review of four decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had dismissed his complaint of disability discrimination against his former employer and union.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions, finding it reasonable to bar re-litigation of facts decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rejecting allegations of bias, and finding no denial of procedural fairness in refusing late document production.

The Court also found the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the applicant's termination was based on misconduct, not disability.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for breaching a non-competition clause in his employment contract and ordering him to repay a $20,000 non-compete payment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in interpreting the contract.

The appellant had met the conditions for the payment by remaining employed for one year and not competing during that time.

Although the non-competition clause was enforceable and breached later, the respondent proved no damages, so the action was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his application for review of a refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

The Board had refused to extend the 30-day time limit for filing the application under s. 116(5) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the Board's decision and subsequent reconsideration decisions were reasonable.

The employer applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award that ordered it to repay funds to an employee.

The employee, a station collector, had erroneously credited customers' debit cards instead of debiting them, resulting in a shortage.

The arbitrator found the employee responsible for the shortage under the collective agreement but held the employer could not recover the funds because it failed to mitigate its loss.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding the arbitrator's imposition of a duty to mitigate unreasonable in the context of a contractual debt and the collective agreement's clear language.

The applicant employer sought judicial review to quash an arbitration award concerning a retiring employee's entitlement to vacation pay.

The employee retired in April after taking five weeks of his six-week annual vacation entitlement.

The employer argued that under the collective agreement, the vacation entitlement should be prorated to the time worked in the year of retirement, and sought recovery of the extra vacation pay.

The arbitrator found the collective agreement language clear and unambiguous, holding that proration only applied to unused earned vacation, and the employee owed no repayment.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The City of Vaughan sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of an employee's entry and exit points on the 407 ETR highway.

The City had reimbursed the employee for the toll charges but redacted the location and timing data from the disclosed invoices, arguing it was personal information.

The Commissioner found that while it was personal information, it fell under the exception for information disclosing an employee 'benefit' under s. 14(4)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the entry and exit points defined the quantum of the benefit and were subject to disclosure to ensure government accountability.

The applicant union brought an application for judicial review of an arbitration award that denied a grievance claiming a retired employee was entitled to three additional weeks of vacation pay.

The grievance turned on the interpretation of a Clarity Note in the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Clarity Note and the collective agreement was reasonable and met the Dunsmuir requirements of transparency, intelligibility, and justification.

The respondent employer brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision on the basis of delay.

The applicant had delayed 26 months in filing his application and a further three months in perfecting it, without providing a cogent explanation.

The court found that the delay caused actual prejudice to the respondents, as a key witness had since been dismissed and another respondent had already undergone a full hearing on related issues.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendant in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its appeal from a Master's order.

The Master had refused to strike allegations in the Statement of Claim that the defendant had a practice or policy of terminating employees for just cause when none existed, to avoid providing notice or pay in lieu.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting lines of cases that remained good law following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., and no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing his grievances against the Police Services Board.

The arbitrator had ruled that the applicant lacked standing to proceed to arbitration because his police association refused to take carriage of the grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that under the Police Services Act and the collective agreement, an individual officer does not have the right to arbitrate a grievance against the employer without the association's support.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal an order dismissing his requests to add a counterclaim, consolidate proceedings, and stay a Small Claims Court matter.

The court applied the factors from Rizzi v. Mavros and found that while the moving party had an intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal lacked merit.

Given the moving party's overly litigious conduct and the lack of merit, the justice of the case required dismissing the motion to bring closure to the proceedings.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union policy grievance regarding unilateral changes to employee health benefit plans.

The employer argued the grievance was improperly filed as a policy grievance, improperly expanded in scope, and that the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's conclusions on arbitrability, scope, and interpretation of the collective agreement fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.