Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its application for a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board had found the statutory prerequisites were met but declined to exercise its discretion to grant the declaration, reasoning it would improperly expand the union's bargaining rights without any actual erosion of existing rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's exercise of discretion was reasonable, intelligible, and entitled to deference.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision striking a one-day suspension given to a union representative for unprofessional conduct during and after a termination meeting.

The employer argued the arbitration was procedurally unfair and the arbitrator applied the wrong legal test.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator's refusal to hear a preliminary objection regarding evidence admissibility breached procedural fairness, the outcome of a new hearing would inevitably be the same.

The arbitrator had accepted the employer's evidence regarding the conduct but correctly applied the legal test protecting union representatives from discipline unless their conduct is malicious, knowingly false, or intimidating.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision dismissing his reprisal complaints against his employer, a school board.

The applicant alleged the employer unlawfully retaliated against him under the Occupational Health and Safety Act by denying him a specific teaching position after he raised safety concerns.

The OLRB found the employer's decision was based solely on its inability to accommodate the applicant's medical restrictions, not retaliation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, found the OLRB's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding a union grievance regarding the payment of weekly room and board allowances under a provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued that a memorandum of agreement settling a strike had superseded the weekly rate with a daily rate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's interpretation, which reconciled the memorandum with the expired collective agreement and applied the principle that clear language is needed to remove a benefit, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant brought a stated case from the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking a finding of contempt against the respondents.

The respondents failed to attend a case management teleconference despite being served.

The court ordered the applicant to take further steps to serve the respondents, including personal service on the corporate directors and the personal respondent, and directed the OLRB to appear at the next case conference due to the unusual delay since the case was stated in 2020.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its certification application.

The OLRB had determined that the respondent's work of relining existing sewer pipes using cured-in-place-pipe was maintenance work, not construction work.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OLRB's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its application of its own jurisprudence were internally coherent, rational, and entitled to deference.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certification motion for a proposed class action against a car rental company.

The proposed class consisted of branch managers who alleged they were misclassified as managers and improperly denied overtime pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the claims lacked sufficient commonality due to the substantial variability in the job functions and duties actually performed by the proposed class members across different branch locations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to certify aggregate damages and the finding that British Columbia class members had no cause of action.

The appellant employee appealed an order staying his wrongful dismissal action in favour of arbitration.

He argued the arbitration clause was invalid because the employment agreement contracted out of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, there is no appeal from a decision to stay a proceeding in favour of arbitration.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of pay for personal leave days taken by a locomotive engineer under the Canada Labour Code.

The arbitrator found that because the collective agreement did not specifically provide a method for calculating personal leave pay, the default calculation under s. 17(a) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations applied, rather than the 'basic day' rate argued by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the legislation and the collective agreement was reasonable and consistent with the purpose of ensuring employees do not suffer a wage loss when taking personal leave.

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that required it to enter into a collective agreement with the respondent employer following a final offer vote under s. 42(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had refused to sign the agreement, arguing it would break a pattern agreement applicable to the non-ICI construction sector.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions unreasonable, holding that the Act does not require a union to object to a final offer vote at the outset, and that the Board unreasonably excluded the existence of a pattern agreement as a justification for refusing to sign.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to a different panel of the Board.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty physical altercation with his estranged wife.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the OCPC reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer properly admitted hearsay evidence, correctly applied the test for discreditable conduct, and imposed a penalty within the appropriate range.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a WSIAT decision denying his claim for chronic or traumatic mental stress benefits.

The WSIAT had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily caused by his job reclassification and resulting wage impact, which are employer decisions excluded from compensation under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIAT's decision reasonable and supported by the medical evidence.

The employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the employee damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing the employee was on a fixed-term contract that had expired.

The employee cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for punitive damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the repeated renewals of the contract created an ambiguity, rendering it a contract of continuous service.

The court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the employer's advance written notice was insufficient due to its history of issuing and withdrawing such notices.

The cross-appeal for punitive damages was also dismissed, as the employer's conduct did not meet the required threshold.

The appellants, former employees of Medcan, appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation.

The certification judge had found that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the certification judge erred in principle by failing to conduct the preferability analysis through the lens of the three principal goals of class actions, specifically failing to consider barriers to access to justice and behaviour modification.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Air Canada applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision allowing a union grievance.

The arbitrator had directed Air Canada to stop applying the off-duty status provision of the collective agreement unless it established a discontinuation of its revenue operations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that Air Canada failed to establish a continued 90% reduction in business as of January 2021 was reasonable and supported by the record.

The employer applied for judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding its sick leave administration practices.

The employer had retained a third-party administrator and required employees to communicate with it, complete comprehensive medical forms for absences over five days, and use a specific form for return-to-work accommodations.

The Arbitrator found these practices violated the collective agreement, which specified communication with supervisors and limited the scope of medical information required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement to be reasonable and consistent with arbitral jurisprudence protecting employee privacy.

The applicants, police officers who took leaves of absence to serve as executives on the Ontario Provincial Police Association, sought an interim stay of a misconduct hearing pending their application for judicial review.

They argued the Adjudicator erred in finding they were still 'police officers' subject to discipline under the Police Services Act while on leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the misconduct proceedings to continue without further delay.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that set the terms of a first collective agreement for nurses at a long-term care home.

The union argued that the arbitrator's decision to transition the disability income protection plan to the central agreement terms was unreasonable and lacked adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied the replication principle and statutory criteria, and that the brief reasons were adequate given the parties' prior agreement to a bottom-line decision.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance concerning the wage progression of an Electrical Maintenance Technician.

The arbitrator had found that the employer could require a Red Seal Ticket for advancement to the highest pay rate, despite the collective agreement being silent on the issue.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, finding it unreasonable because the arbitrator failed to meaningfully address the conflicting evidence and arguments regarding the interpretation of the collective agreement and past practice.

The matter was remitted to a new arbitrator.

The applicant hotel suffered a fire that caused significant damage, leading to its closure and the layoff of its employees.

The respondent union grieved the employer's failure to pay termination pay.

The arbitrator found the employees were entitled to termination pay, rejecting the employer's argument that the employment contracts were frustrated under s. 2(1.4) of Ontario Regulation 288/01, because the employer always intended to reopen the hotel.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the arbitrator reasonably applied the test for frustration of contract and reasonably concluded that the temporary break in operations did not render the contracts radically different.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.