Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision dismissing a grievance concerning a teacher's teaching assignment upon her return from pregnancy leave.

The teacher, who previously taught Senior French, was assigned to teach Senior Science upon her return.

The arbitration board found no violation of the reinstatement or non-reprisal provisions of the Employment Standards Act, concluding that her 'position' was as a teacher at the school, not a specific subject assignment.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitration board's decision, finding it was reasonable given the annual nature of teaching assignments and the principal's statutory authority.

The applicant sought judicial review of an employment standards officer's order finding it to be a related employer to a bankrupt company and ordering it to pay over $500,000 in vacation, termination, and severance pay.

The court exercised its discretion to permit judicial review because the applicant lacked the funds to pay the deposit required for a mandatory review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The court quashed the officer's order, finding no evidence to support the conclusion that the applicant was created with the intent or effect of defeating the purposes of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award dismissing a grievance regarding holiday and overtime pay for work performed on Remembrance Day.

The arbitrator had concluded that there was an apparent contradiction between two articles of the collective agreement and interpreted them such that one applied to scheduled work and the other to unscheduled work.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's conclusion to be reasonable based on the record and dismissed the application, fixing costs at $5,000.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision finding that health care aides dispatched to a hospital were not 'casual' employees under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal had focused on 'the work' performed rather than the 'position', concluding the work was performed on a regular and continuing basis.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its home statute was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his appeal from an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

The Board had determined that the applicant resigned and was not constructively dismissed when asked to perform grinding operations.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's conclusion was supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendant employer brought a motion for leave to appeal an order refusing to strike out the statement of claim against it.

The employer argued that at common law, an employer cannot be impleaded by an employee seeking a remedy for their union's breach of the duty of fair representation.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the common law is dynamic and a plaintiff should not be denied the possibility of establishing a right to a remedy at the pleadings stage.

The appellant, a former martial arts instructor, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $10,000 for breach of a non-competition agreement.

The appellant had signed an agreement prohibiting him from operating a competing school within a ten-mile radius for one year, but opened a competing business half a block away shortly after resigning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the restrictive covenant valid, supported by consideration, and reasonable in temporal and spatial scope.

The court also upheld the damage award, noting the respondent's proprietary interest in student relationships.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board decision that upheld the constitutionality of s. 58(5)(c) of the Employment Standards Act.

The provision denied severance pay to employees whose contracts were frustrated due to illness or injury.

The Divisional Court found that the provision discriminated against severely disabled employees, violating s. 15(1) of the Charter, and was not saved by s. 1.

The offending words were struck down, and the disabled employee was awarded severance pay.

The appellant police service appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services that substituted a penalty of temporary demotion for dismissal.

The respondent police officer had pointed a loaded semi-automatic pistol at his partner in the detachment office.

The Hearing Officer ordered dismissal, finding the conduct so egregious that rehabilitation was not the controlling factor.

The Commission varied the penalty to demotion, citing rehabilitation and provocation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying a standard of reasonableness simpliciter, and reinstated the penalty of dismissal, holding that the Commission's decision was unreasonable given the extreme danger and impropriety of the officer's actions.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services refusing to consent to the abolition of the municipal police force unless the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) agreed to binding arbitration regarding the hiring of a specific officer.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commission's jurisdiction under section 40(3) of the Police Services Act is limited to ordering arbitration between a police board and a member regarding severance pay.

The Commission had no statutory authority to order the OPP to submit to arbitration regarding an officer's suitability for employment.

The condition was set aside and the Commission was directed to consent to the termination.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, arguing it was entitled to notice of the arbitration because the decision affected its attempts to unionize security guards in the film industry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was only indirectly affected by the arbitration and therefore not entitled to notice.

Furthermore, the court held it was inappropriate to proceed with judicial review while parallel proceedings regarding the same issues were pending before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant employer association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing its application for final offer selection to amend a collective agreement.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the application and was required to choose one of the two final offers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the pragmatic and functional approach, the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was subject to a patently unreasonable standard of review.

The court held it was not patently unreasonable for the arbitrator to conclude that the existence of a competitive disadvantage had to be verified before an offer could be selected, and that the arbitrator's factual findings were supported by evidence.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing its policy grievance.

The grievance alleged that the respondent union violated the collective agreement by maintaining that bargaining unit employees were not required to work on paid holidays without their consent.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was supported by the contractual language.

Although the arbitrator erred in referencing the 'no contracting out' provision of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the court concluded that this was not the basis for his decision and upheld his findings as reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $12,203.73 for unpaid commissions and $28,400.00 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding on the merits, concluding there was ample evidence to support the commission entitlement.

However, the court found the trial judge erred in the costs award, noting the importance of proportionality and reasonableness under the simplified rules.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the trial costs reduced to $10,000.00.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding the discharge of an employee for sleeping on the job.

The employee was subject to a Last Chance Agreement that permitted immediate discharge for sleeping at work.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably disregarded medical evidence suggesting the employee suffered from sleep apnea and circadian rhythm disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator carefully considered the evidence and reasonably concluded the sleep apnea only became significant after termination.

The arbitrator's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his application for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by deciding the matter on the issue of delay without giving the applicant an opportunity to address it.

The applicant's own delay in applying for judicial review was satisfactorily explained by his impecuniosity.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further consideration.

The applicant, a former respiratory therapist, sought judicial review of two arbitration awards from 1994 and 1995 that upheld his suspension and dismissal, as well as a 1999 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two independent grounds: excessive and unexplained delay of up to eight years, and the applicant's lack of standing to seek judicial review of arbitration awards where the union holds exclusive bargaining agency.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating an employee who was terminated for excessive innocent absenteeism under an attendance management system.

The arbitrator found that the termination violated the Human Rights Code because the absences relied upon included a compensable workplace injury, and the employer failed to show undue hardship in accommodating the employee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the arbitrator's decision and finding no error in the arbitrator's application of human rights principles regarding the duty to accommodate.

The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board brought a motion to amend a previous Divisional Court order regarding the allocation of a deceased member's pre-retirement death benefit between his former spouse and his surviving spouse.

The court held that the former spouse's entitlement under a separation agreement was not limited to benefits accrued after 1986, as the Pension Benefits Act provisions allowing assignment of pension benefits on marriage breakdown applied to both pre-1987 and post-1986 benefits.

However, the court found that section 51(2) of the Act limited the former spouse's entitlement to 50% of the benefits accrued during the period of marriage, which ended on the date of their divorce.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration decision that allowed the employer municipality to fill new positions using management rights clauses rather than seniority provisions from predecessor collective agreements following amalgamation.

The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision, finding it patently unreasonable to apply management rights while ignoring the seniority provisions to which those rights were subject under the statutorily mandated composite collective agreement.