Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to delay.

The applicant had waited over six years after his pension was transferred to file the complaint, having pursued other litigation in the interim.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to dismiss the application for delay was reasonable, noting that pursuing other litigation does not justify delay and that the Board is entitled to control its own process.

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 Township of Carling sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring disclosure of severance and termination clauses in the employment contracts of several municipal employees.

The Township argued the adjudicator erred in finding the clauses constituted 'benefits' under s. 14(4)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rather than protected personal information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's decision was reasonable, adequately reasoned, and properly distinguished between benefits negotiated in an initial employment contract versus those negotiated post-termination.

The applicant, a temporary help agency, sought judicial review of ten orders to pay approximately $2.8 million in unpaid wages under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The applicant bypassed the statutory review process before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, arguing exceptional circumstances due to impecuniosity, as the Act requires paying the ordered amount in trust to access the Board review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy before the Board and failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish impecuniosity.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting loss of earnings benefits to a firefighter who was terminated for cause but subsequently diagnosed with work-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal applied the 'worker conduct' line of cases, finding that the worker's condition rendered him unemployable and that his loss of earnings resulted from the compensable injury rather than his termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and its assessment of the medical evidence were reasonable.

The defendant appealed an order striking its statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The statement of defence was struck after the defendant engaged in a months-long pattern of delaying and frustrating the scheduling of examinations for discovery, despite warnings from plaintiff's counsel and a case management judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's exercise of discretion.

The court confirmed that striking the pleading was a proportionate response to the defendant's egregious and ongoing dilatory conduct.

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 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 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 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 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 brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a single judge's order dismissing its application for judicial review for delay.

The Divisional Court panel first granted an extension of time to hear the late-filed motion.

On the merits, the panel held that the standard of review is deferential and the motion judge did not err in finding that an 11-month delay, combined with an insufficient explanation and prejudice to the respondent, warranted dismissal.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant Health Unit sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that found it breached the collective agreement by offering straight-time payouts for accumulated comp time during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Health Unit argued the breach was authorized by the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act and O. Reg. 116/20.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review for interpreting the emergency order was correctness.

Although the court found the arbitration board erred in concluding the Act did not permit orders with financial consequences, it upheld the board's factual finding that the specific measure taken was not 'reasonably necessary' to respond to the outbreak.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld the employer's random drug testing policy for safety-sensitive positions at the airport.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it departed from established arbitral jurisprudence without justification.

Specifically, the arbitrator upheld the policy without any evidence of a workplace drug problem at the airport, relying instead on evidence from a different case involving a different workplace.

The application for judicial review was granted, the award was set aside, and the grievance was remitted to a new arbitrator.

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 appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found that the two appellant corporations operated as a single business and were common employers of the respondent.

The appellants argued there was insufficient evidence of common control, the action against one corporation was statute-barred, and the trial judge erred in awarding substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49 by failing to deduct hypothetical tax consequences from the damages award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the common employer finding, the addition of the second corporation was a valid correction of a misnomer, and Rule 49 comparisons must be based on the actual quantum of damages awarded rather than net tax consequences.

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 employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding it engaged in an unlawful reprisal by terminating an employee who raised health and safety concerns.

The employer argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board limited witness testimony during a consultation and proceeded with a remedy hearing in the employer's absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedures were fair and in accordance with its rules, and its conclusion that the termination was an unlawful reprisal was reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether certain bargaining proposals were central or local issues under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

Following the Board's decision, the parties reached an agreement that the disputed issues were central, resolving the underlying conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matter because the Board's procedural decision did not set a dangerous precedent requiring appellate intervention.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of an employment standards officer's decision, over ten months after the decision was rendered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay was excessive, there was no reasonable explanation for the delay, and the respondent would suffer prejudice.

Furthermore, the court found no apparent grounds for relief, noting the moving party failed to pursue a de novo review before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.