The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement.
The issue was whether the agreement provided for 100% reimbursement for a psychologist's report diagnosing the grievor's child with autism, or if it was subject to a cap for psychological services.
The Board had relied on a clause in a subsequent Implementation Agreement that neither party had made submissions on.
The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it relied on a paragraph that, in context, only applied to routine eye examinations and had no relevance to the psychological assessment at issue.
The Board's decision was quashed and remitted to a differently-constituted panel.