Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The self-represented applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision.

The applicant sought to challenge the Board's finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation after it declined to seek judicial review of an arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the eight-month delay was not adequately explained, the delay caused substantial prejudice to the timely resolution of labour disputes, and the underlying application for judicial review lacked merit.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her claims of workplace discrimination and reprisal against her former employer.

She alleged the HRTO hearing was procedurally unfair and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the HRTO's procedural rulings, including the admission of hearsay evidence and late-filed documents, were fair and within its discretion.

The court concluded the HRTO's dismissal of the discrimination and reprisal allegations was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee six months' pay in lieu of common law notice following a without-cause termination.

The trial judge had found the employment agreement's termination provisions void because the 'for cause' clause violated the Employment Standards Act by contracting out of the statutory standard for wilful misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the Waksdale framework to invalidate the entire termination clause and made no palpable or overriding error in assessing the common law notice period using the Bardal factors.

The applicant, a municipal contractor, sought judicial review of a decision by the City's Fair Wage Office finding that it violated the Fair Wage Policy by failing to pay a worker the minimum hourly rate for a 'welder'.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable because the worker performed unskilled 'stud welding' rather than skilled journeyman welding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness as the applicant was given fair notice and multiple opportunities to respond.

The court also held the decision was reasonable, as the applicable Sewer and Watermain schedule did not distinguish between certified and uncertified welders, and the worker spent 90% of his time performing a form of welding.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant employer in support of an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The affidavit summarized evidence and proceedings from the arbitration hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the affidavit did not fall within the recognized exceptions for supplementing the record on judicial review, as it was an attempt to reframe the evidence before the arbitrator.

The affidavit was struck with leave to file a reconstituted version containing only exhibits and closing submissions.

The applicant, a former teacher, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision staying her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously pursued grievances through her union, which involved extensive arbitration hearings where unfavourable medical evidence was presented, before the union withdrew the grievances.

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO Vice-Chair reasonably concluded the applicant was engaged in forum shopping and that allowing the HRTO application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant teachers' association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding he lacked jurisdiction over a grievance regarding preparation, planning, and supervision provisions.

The arbitrator concluded these provisions were local terms, not central terms under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding his purposive and contextual interpretation of 'central terms' was consistent with the statutory scheme and legislative intent.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that declined to compress the wage grid for registered nurses and nurse practitioners.

The union argued the existing grid was discriminatory and that correcting it was exempt from the 1% compensation cap under Bill 124.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the interest arbitration process was not the appropriate forum to make the necessary adjudicative findings of specific Human Rights Code breaches by 131 separate employers, nor to usurp the ongoing pay equity process.

The appellant employer sought to amend its statement of defence to add a counterclaim against the respondent, alleging that the respondent's lawsuit against a former employee constituted intentional interference with economic relations and induced a breach of contract.

The Associate Justice dismissed the motion, finding the proposed claims untenable in law because commencing a civil action is not an unlawful act.

On appeal, the appellant raised a new argument based on the tort of abuse of civil process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that new arguments should generally not be raised on appeal and that, in any event, the proposed counterclaim did not meet the test for abuse of process.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award which held that, although the employer had the authority to change the pension plan under the collective agreement, it was estopped from freezing the Defined Benefits component until the expiry of the agreement.

The arbitrator found the employer made a clear representation in 1999 that employees choosing the Defined Benefits plan would remain in it until retirement, and the union detrimentally relied on this by losing the opportunity to negotiate protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's application of the doctrine of estoppel and his factual findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's award dismissing a grievance over the respondent hospital's unilateral decision to change the designated home worksites of finance department employees following a merger.

The union argued the collective agreement's mobility clause prohibited this change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the collective agreement did not restrict the hospital's management right to transfer employees between worksites.

The court also ruled that an affidavit tendered by the union to supplement the record was inadmissible.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two arbitration decisions that allowed a disabled employee to elect to receive severance pay under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employee, who could no longer perform his job due to a workplace injury, was entitled to elect severance because no other job had been offered to him, meaning no job was 'available'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and her conclusion that a job must be offered to be considered available were reasonable.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interlocutory evidentiary ruling regarding settlement privilege in one of 11 test cases concerning employee benefits fraud.

The parties had agreed that the ruling in this test case would apply to the other ten.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the agreement to apply the ruling across test cases did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the fragmentation of the administrative process.

The court emphasized that labour arbitration cases should generally be decided finally before judicial review is sought.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming application to be heard by video conference.

The court provided instructions on the use of ZOOM, electronic document filing via a password-protected dropbox, formatting of factums with hyperlinks, and the preparation of electronic compendiums.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the bargaining agent for four construction workers.

The applicant challenged the Board's evidentiary ruling that prevented its site superintendent from testifying about his relationship with other on-site workers not subject to the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to exclude the evidence as irrelevant was reasonable, as the applicant had expressly confirmed it was not challenging the size of the bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that allowed an employee to participate in a representation vote on a displacement application.

The applicant argued the employee should have been excluded under the April Waterproofing doctrine because he was not assigned to work by the incumbent union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably interpreted 'in the bargaining unit' based on the work being done and reasonably applied its current, more nuanced approach to the April Waterproofing doctrine.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding a voluntary severance program.

The Divisional Court found that the Board reasonably applied the test for the duty of fair representation, did not misapprehend the evidence, provided adequate reasons, and did not breach the principles of natural justice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge had found that the termination clause in the appellant's employment agreement was enforceable and clearly rebutted the common law presumption of reasonable notice, limiting his entitlement to the minimums under applicable employment standards legislation.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's objective interpretation of the contract and dismissed the appeal.

The Toronto Police Service sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that varied the penalty imposed on a police officer who pled guilty to deceit and insubordination.

The Hearing Officer had ordered dismissal, but the Commission substituted a penalty of forfeiture of pay, suspension, and demotion, finding the Hearing Officer made several errors in principle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer erred by mischaracterizing the officer's admission of a mistake, making unsupported findings about risks to an investigation, and improperly relying on the fact of the officer's suspension.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitration decision that upheld his termination for fabricating a workplace violence allegation.

The application was brought over two years after the arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two preliminary grounds: the applicant lacked standing to bring the application individually as the union had exclusive representation rights and no exceptional circumstances applied, and the application was barred by unreasonable and unexplained delay.