Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding that it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee.

The employer argued the Deputy Judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact by failing to consider hearsay evidence suggesting the employee had voluntarily resigned by transferring his duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the employee's email and actions did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation, and the unconsidered hearsay evidence would not have changed the result.

The appellants brought motions to reinstate two appeals that were dismissed for delay by the registrar.

The appeals stemmed from Small Claims Court judgments finding that the respondents were employees, not independent contractors.

The registrar dismissed the appeals because the appellants failed to file proof of ordering transcripts on time.

The Divisional Court held that the registrar lacked the authority to dismiss the appeals because the appellants had filed proof of ordering the transcripts prior to the registrar's hearing, exhausting the registrar's administrative jurisdiction.

The motions were granted and the appeals reinstated, subject to strict conditions regarding service, transcript ordering, and the posting of security for costs.

The appellant employer lost a contract to provide rehabilitation services at a hospital to a competitor.

The appellant terminated its employees, who were subsequently hired by the competitor without recognition of past service.

The appellant argued that a 'sale of a business' occurred under s. 9 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, relieving it of the obligation to provide termination and severance pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Small Claims Court finding that no sale or transfer occurred, as no assets were transferred and there was no commercial connection between the competitors.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing his complaints against his union and its president for alleged breaches of the duty of fair representation and intimidation.

The applicant alleged the union president told the college president to fire him after the applicant raised concerns about the union's workplace culture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the applicant suffered no actual prejudice in his employment relationship.

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 police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's penalty requiring her to resign or face termination.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting 15 fraudulent massage therapy benefits claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OCPC reasonably applied the standard of review, properly deferred to the Hearing Officer's weighing of the Krug factors and usefulness test, and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found a grievor was a member of the full-time support staff bargaining unit and thus entitled to grieve a job competition.

The arbitrator had included the grievor's time as a temporary replacement worker in calculating whether he was regularly employed for more than 24 hours a week.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, noting that the arbitrator misunderstood the employer's position, misapplied past jurisprudence, and failed to recognize that temporary replacement employees are already part of the full-time bargaining unit.

The application for judicial review was granted and the award was quashed.

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

He alleged his former employer, the Ottawa Catholic School Board, failed to accommodate his return to work from a medical leave by improperly requiring him to attend an independent medical examination (IME).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the employer had a bona fide reason to question the treating physician's medical information and was justified in requesting an IME.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's refusal to admit post-application evidence regarding the accommodation process.

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 applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a competing union to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondent construction company.

The Board had determined that the applicant's existing collective agreement did not cover carpenters and carpenters' apprentices, effectively ending the applicant's intervention in the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and correct based on the plain meaning of the agreement's recognition and jurisdiction clauses.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award regarding the reduction of hours for regular part-time nurses following a bed closure.

The arbitrator had found that while the hospital was not obliged to schedule part-time nurses to their committed hours if work was unavailable, failing to do so constituted a lay-off under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court held that these two findings were fundamentally inconsistent and led to an absurd result.

The court granted the application, setting aside the arbitration award as unreasonable, and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that upheld the employer's prorating of an employee's vacation entitlements due to an unpaid leave of absence.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it ignored the presumption that vacation entitlements based on service continue to accrue during authorized leaves absent clear language to the contrary in the collective agreement.

The application was allowed, the award set aside, and the matter remitted to a new arbitrator.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee and breached the Human Rights Code.

The employee was terminated after a 28-month disability leave, despite providing a return-to-work plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the employment contract was not frustrated, the employer failed to accommodate the employee, and disability benefits paid by a third-party insurer were not deductible from the wrongful dismissal damages.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding brought by sales agents claiming to be employees under the Employment Standards Act rather than independent contractors.

The defendants argued the motions judge erred in finding employee status to be a common issue and in failing to limit the class definition based on the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The University of Ottawa applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award concerning overtime pay under Article 20.4 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the grievors were entitled to overtime because their evening and weekend work was an add-on to their regular schedule, not a modified or temporarily altered schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and findings of fact were reasonable and owed deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been reinstated by an arbitrator without back pay after a three-year delay in the arbitration decision.

The union initially sought judicial review to compel the arbitrator's reasons but abandoned the application once reasons were provided, concluding it was unlikely to succeed.

The Divisional Court found the Board's conclusion that the union acted reasonably to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed a master's decision dismissing its motion to stay a wrongful dismissal action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The appellant argued the master erred in considering juridical advantage and in failing to follow a similar Superior Court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the master correctly applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Van Breda regarding juridical advantage and properly exercised his discretion in weighing the factors.

The court held that the master was entitled to distinguish the prior Superior Court decision based on the unique circumstances of the case.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found she made false reports of abuse against a fellow teacher and revoked her teaching certificate.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the Committee's factual findings or credibility assessments.

The court also upheld the penalty of revocation, finding it fell within the range of reasonable outcomes given the serious nature of falsely accusing a colleague of abuse.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Ottawa Police Services applied for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reinstated a police officer previously dismissed for unsatisfactory work performance.

The Commission had found that the police service failed to strictly follow its established procedures under O. Reg. 268/10 before initiating the complaint.

The Divisional Court (majority) held that the Commission's strict interpretation of the regulation was unreasonable, finding that the police service's extensive ad hoc efforts to assist the officer substantially complied with the statutory requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Commission's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted.