CITATION: Peel District School Board v. Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 19 (Ontario), 2019 ONSC 6172
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 551/18
DATE: 20191024
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
R. Smith, D.L. Corbett, Favreau JJ.
B E T W E E N :
PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 19
Respondent
Roy Filion and Anthony Pannaci
for the Applicant
Joshua Phillips and Erin Epp
for the Respondent
HEARD: April 30, 2019
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FAVREAU J.:
Introduction
[1] The applicant, the Peel District School Board (the "Board"), seeks to judicially review two arbitration decisions made by Arbitrator Russell Goodfellow. Both decisions deal with the calculation of payments to members of the respondent, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 19 (the "Federation") following the 2012 termination of teachers' entitlement to payments for unused sick days at the time of retirement.
[2] In the first decision dated March 24, 2017, the Arbitrator found that, for the purpose of calculating the payout, the applicable regulations and collective agreement required the Board to round up years of service to the next whole year for teachers with more than X.500 years (the "First Arbitration Decision"). In the second decision dated August 8, 2018, the Arbitrator found that the Board could not round down the years of service for teachers with less than X.500 in the recalculation of the payouts (the "Second Arbitration Decision").[^1]
[3] The Board argues that the Arbitrator's decisions are unreasonable because they do not accord with the Board's past practice of not rounding up or down the years of service in calculating payments for unused sick leave at the time of retirement, and because the Arbitrator should have found that the Federation was estopped from raising the recalculation issue.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Arbitrator's decisions were reasonable. They were supported by the regulatory scheme and collective agreement, and fall within the range of possible outcomes.
Background
Relevant statutory, regulatory and collective agreement provisions
[5] Up until 2012, the collective agreement between the Board and the Federation provided that teachers were to receive a payment for unused sick days at the time of their retirement. One of the conditions for receiving the payment was that a teacher have 10 years of service by the time of retirement.
[6] In July 2012, the provincial government and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA) entered into an agreement, which provided for the elimination of payments for unused sick days at the time of retirement. However, the agreement also provided that teachers who reached the eligibility threshold for a payment for unused sick days by August 31, 2012, would be entitled to a payment in an amount to be determined by the Boards and paid out upon retirement. For teachers who did not reach the threshold, there was to be no payment.
[7] In September 2012, the provincial government passed the Putting Students First Act, 2012, S.O. 2012, c.11, which required boards of education to negotiate collective agreements for 2012-2014 that contained terms that were substantially similar to those in the agreement between OECTA and the government.
[8] Soon after the passage of the Putting Students First Act, the OECTA agreement was enhanced to provide for a payment to employees who had not yet reached the 10 year threshold. (Payments to be made at the time of retirement to teachers with 10 years or more of service on August 31, 2012 are referred to throughout the rest of this decision as "vested retirement payments", and payments to be made at the time the program was wound-up to teachers with less than 10 years of service are referred to as "windup payments".)
[9] Regulation 2/13 under the Putting Students First Act and Regulation 1/13 under the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.2, set out the terms to be included in all collective agreements to address vested retirement payments and wind-up payments. The relevant provisions of both regulations are similar. The relevant provisions of Regulation 2/13 under the Putting Students First Act are set out below, with paragraphs 1 to 5 of section 3(1) dealing with vested retirement payments and paragraph 6 dealing with windup payments:
(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 of subsection 4 (1) of the Act, the following are prescribed as terms that modify or replace terms set out in the "Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Education and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA)", dated July 5, 2012, or in the Memorandum of Understanding described in subparagraph 2 i of subsection 4 (1) of the Act, and, for the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 4 (1) of the Act, are prescribed as terms that are to be included in every collective agreement:
The employee is not eligible to receive any form of retirement gratuity after August 31, 2012, except any retirement gratuity that the employee had accumulated and was eligible to receive as of that day.
If the employee is eligible to receive a retirement gratuity, upon the employee's retirement, the gratuity shall be paid out at the lesser of,
i. the rate of pay specified in the collective agreement that applied to the employee on August 31, 2012 as the rate for payment of the retirement gratuity, and
ii. the employee's salary as of August 31, 2012.
- If the employee is eligible to receive a retirement gratuity, the board must provide the employee and the employee's bargaining agent with a report, on or before May 31, 2013, that sets out the following information determined as of August 31, 2012:
i. The number of days of sick leave credits as have been accumulated by the employee.
ii. The number of years of service that are counted in determining the employee's retirement gratuity.
iii. The rate of pay described in subparagraph 2 i.
iv. The employee's salary.
v. The amount of the employee's retirement gratuity, together with the calculation used to determine that amount.
vi. Any conditions that affect the employee's eligibility to receive the retirement gratuity.
If the employee believes that any information in the report provided in accordance with paragraph 4 is inaccurate, the employee must advise the board of those inaccuracies on or before June 30, 2013.
If, as of August 31, 2012, the employee has accumulated a retirement gratuity (other than one in the form of an early retirement incentive plan or a contribution to a registered retirement savings plan) but if the employee is not eligible to receive the retirement gratuity for the sole reason that he or she has not satisfied an eligibility requirement relating to the number of years of his or her service as an employee with the board, the employee is eligible to receive, by June 30, 2013, the following amount for gratuity wind-up:
i. If the collective agreement that was in effect on August 31, 2012 or a board policy that was in effect on that date provided for a payment for such a retirement gratuity, the amount that is the lesser of,
A. the amount of the payment that would be provided under the collective agreement or board policy, calculated using the number of years of his or her service as an employee with the board as of August 31, 2012 and, if the retirement gratuity is in the form of sick leave credits, using the number of days of sick leave credits accumulated by the employee as of August 31, 2012, and
B. the amount calculated using the formula in subparagraph ii.
ii. In any other case, the amount calculated using the formula,
(X/30) × (Y/200) × (Z/10)
in which,
"X" is the number of years of his or her service as an employee with the board as of August 31, 2012,
"Y" is the lesser of 200 and the number of days of sick leave credits accumulated by the employee as of August 31, 2012, and
"Z" is the employee's salary as of August 31, 2012.
[10] On April 9, 2013, after the regulations were passed, the Federation concluded its negotiations with the Ministry, which resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding. The Memorandum of Understanding contained the following provision dealing with the payments for unused sick leave:
Non-Vested Retirement Gratuity for Employees
The Minimum years of service for retirement gratuity shall be defined as the lesser of the contractual minimal service requirement in the 2008-2012 collective agreement, or ten (10) years.
Those employees with less than the minimum number of years of service shall have that entitlement frozen as of August 31, 2012. These employees shall be entitled to a Gratuity Wind-Up Payment calculated as the lesser of the board's existing amount calculated under the board's collective agreement as of August 31, 2012 (or board policy as of that date) or the following formula:
X x Y x Z = Gratuity Wind-Up Payment
30 200 4
X = years of service (as of August 31, 2012)
Y = accumulated sick days (as of August 31, 2012)
Z = annual salary (as of August 31, 2012)
To clarity, X, Y, and Z shall be defined in the 2008-2012 collective agreement or as per policy or practice of the Board for retirement gratuity purposes.
The Gratuity Wind-Up Payment shall be paid to each employee by the end of the school year.
The pay-out for those who have vested Retirement Gratuities shall be as per ONR. REG. 2/13 and 12/13 made under the PUTTING STUDENTS FIRST ACT, 2012 and ONT. REG. 1/13 and 11/13 made under the EDUCATION ACT.
[11] It was agreed that the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding were to be incorporated into the local parties' collective agreements. The 2012-2014 collective agreements thereby consisted of the 2008-2012 collective agreement as modified by the Memorandum of Understanding.
[12] In this case, Article 26 of the 2012-2014 Collective Agreement between the Board and the Federation addressed payments for unused sick days, with Article 26.01 setting out the eligibility requirements and Article 26.04 setting out the calculation:
26.01 An allowance on retirement of the Board shall be paid when all of the following conditions have been met:
a) A Teacher has been continuously under contract to, or on leave from, with or without salary, the Board or its predecessors for a minimum period of 10 years immediately prior to the retirement date.
b) A teacher has an accumulated minimum total of 10 years of service with the Board that qualify for step placement.
c) The Teacher has attained the age of 60 years or is eligible for a pension under the provisions of the Teachers' Pension Plan and is at such time employed by the Board.
26.04 The amount of the allowance payable shall be calculated as follows for accumulated service as defined in Article 26.01 b):
a) for ten years' service - 20% of the annual salary being paid at the time of retirement;
b) for each additional year of service - 2% of the annual salary being paid at the time of retirement;
d) the maximum amount payable shall be 50% of the annual salary being paid at the time of retirement.
[13] The reference to "Step Placement" in Article 26.01 b) refers to Article 24.04 which is titled "Step Placement" and sets out what experience is to count in "determining the position of a Teacher on the Teacher Experience Schedule". Article 24.04 contains a lengthy list of what counts as experience, including such things as the effects of pregnancy and parental leaves. The contentious provision on this application is Article 24.04(e), which provides as follows:
e) If a Teacher has taught a fraction of a full year, then the number of years teaching experience shall be calculated by pro-rating the exact number of days worked by the Teacher in the school year, in the exact proportion to the total number of school days in that school year. Any fraction of cumulative teaching experience which is equivalent to .500 or more shall be counted as one year.
Implementation and disagreement over rounding up of years of service and arbitration
[14] Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the Board was required to provide a report to employees entitled to a vested retirement payment setting out the amount of the payment by May 31, 2013. Employees entitled to a windup payment were to receive their payments by June 30, 2013.
[15] By May 31, 2013, the Board sent letters to all employees eligible for a windup payment advising that they had until June 14, 2013 to submit disagreements with the calculation of their payments. The letter stated that if employees did not respond or indicate their disagreement, they would receive their payments on June 28, 2013.
[16] At the end of June 2013, the Board sent letters to employees entitled to a vested retirement payment, advising them of the amount they would receive upon retirement.
[17] In October of 2013, the Federation raised issues with the Board over the manner in which the vested retirement payments and windup payments had been calculated.
[18] Ultimately, in December 2013, the Federation brought a grievance against the Board that raised the two following issues:
a. Whether the Board was required to round up a teacher's years of service for determining eligibility to receive a vested retirement payment; and
b. Whether the Board was required to round up a teacher's years of service for the purpose of calculating the vested retirement payment and the windup payment.
[19] The matter proceeded to arbitration, largely on the basis of an agreed statement of fact.
Decisions of the arbitrator
[20] In the First Arbitration Decision released on March 24, 2017, the Arbitrator found that the Board was not required to round up a teacher's years of service when deciding whether the teacher has 10 years of service for the purpose of determining entitlement to the vested retirement payment. However, for the purposes of calculating the amount of the vested retirement payments and the wind-up payments, for those teachers with X.500 years of service of more, the Board was required to round up the teachers' years of service to the next full year.
[21] The parties do not challenge the Arbitrator's first conclusion, and therefore it is not necessary to review his reasoning on that issue.
[22] With respect to the second issue, the Arbitrator found that Article 24.04(e) of the collective agreement applies to the calculation. The crux of the Arbitrator's reasoning on this issue is as follows:
This requirement appears to operate alongside Article 26.04 of the collective agreement; it does not replace it. It deals with the rate of pay or annual salary, not the years of service multiplier. The issue here is the latter, not the former, specifically, whether the Board was required to round up any fractional cumulative years of service of .500 or more.
In my view, the answer is yes. And that is because "accumulated service as defined in Article 26.01(b)", as those words are used in sub-article 26.04, clearly embraces, "any fraction of cumulative teaching experience which is equivalent to .500 or more", as those words are used in paragraph (e) of sub-article 24.04. There is no basis for excluding paragraph (e) from the balance of sub-article 24.04 when performing the required calculation. Sub article 26.04 does not say, "accumulated service as defined in sub-article 26.01(b), except any cumulative partial years of service that qualify as one year", nor does paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph 26.01 say that. Paragraph (b) of sub-article 26.01 simply refers to "years of service with the Board that qualify for step placement" and, in the circumstances described in paragraph (e) of sub-article 24.04, a particular fraction of a year must "be counted as one year". The fact that the rounding obligation was created for purposes of salary grid placement does not provide a basis for excluding it from the calculation of the retirement allowances or gratuities given the clear wording of sub-article 26.04 and paragraph (b) of sub-article 26.01, which embrace the entire "step placement" sub-article.
As for the calculation of the "gratuity wind-up payment", or the "non-vested retirement gratuity", the method was expressly prescribed in the middle paragraphs of the Memorandum, which mirror the Regulations. For the reasons already given, I am of the view that whether dealing with "the board's existing amount calculated under the board's collective agreement as of August 31, 2012" (as those words are used in the first alternative under the second paragraph of the memorandum, which, presumably, refer to the vested retirement gratuity or retirement allowance calculation) or "years of service (as of August 31, 2012) … as defined in the 2008-2012 collective agreement", as those words are used in the prescribed formula, rounding is necessarily included.
[23] The arbitrator went on to dismiss the Board's argument that it could rely on its past practice:
As I see it, the only possible issue in respect of both calculations is what impact, if any, should the Board's practice of not applying rounding when determining the value of the former retirement allowance have in this setting. In my view, the answer is none.
First, I seriously doubt whether a practice concerning retirement allowance calculations under a local collective agreement could properly be extended to the obligations newly created by the PSFA, Regulations and the centrally negotiated Memorandum, without specific language of incorporation. The retirement allowance, vested retirement gratuity and gratuity wind-up payments are three different things and a practice in respect of the first, which was being eliminated, even if that practice was known to the Federation, would not apply to the second or third unless that was statutorily or contractually provided for. (Further, without reciting the relevant evidence here, I would also note that it would have been difficult for me to conclude that the Federation was sufficiently, if at all, aware of that practice so as to give it binding interpretative effect.) And that may explain the Board's emphasis on the "clarity note" in the Memorandum (and a further submission that, in the light of that note, any Federation knowledge of the practice was irrelevant).
Second, I am unable to find that the clarity note applied. Not only does it appear to relate exclusively to the calculation of the gratuity wind-up payment (defining the "X" variable of the prescribed formula), it does not appear to have been intended to embrace a situation in which the matter was expressly provided for in the terms of the agreement. Much like my reading of the purpose behind the "ten (10) years of service" reference in the context of the Federation's alternative eligibility argument above, I find here, in accordance with the Federation's submission, that the reference to "board policy or practice" was not intended to present an alternative where the matter was expressly provided for in terms of a local agreement. Rather, it was meant to address any situation in which it was not spelled out in terms of such agreement. This conclusion is supported by subsection 4 (4.1) of O. Reg. 1/13 under the Education Act, in its description of the use to be made of "rules set out in a board policy", which, it seems likely, was the source of the reference in the memorandum in the first place.
[24] Finally, the arbitrator also dismissed the Board's argument that the Federation was estopped from challenging the calculation of the vested retirement gratuity and the wind-up payments. In particular, the arbitrator found that there was no detrimental reliance given that there was insufficient evidence that the Board would be unable to pay the amounts at issue:
The simple fact is that we are dealing with payments to employees to which they are contractually, if not also statutorily, entitled. They are monies owing to employees from the Board as a legislatively mandated part of the collective agreement under which the grievance was filed. To find that employees are to be deprived of the full amount of the funds on account of an alleged inability to pay would require the clearest possible evidence of that inability tied directly to the alleged representation. That evidence simply does not and, I believe, could not exist.
[25] Following the Arbitrator's decision, the Board recalculated the vested retirement payments and windup payments, and, in doing so, rounded down to the next lowest whole number payments for teachers whose years of service were less than x.500.
[26] The Federation challenged the Board's rounding down calculations, and, in his Second Decision dated August 8, 2018, the arbitrator found that the Board was not entitled to round down because that is not what is provided for in Article 24.04(e) of the collective cgreement.
Issues raised on the application
[27] The Board argues that the Arbitrator made the three following errors in the First Arbitration Decision:
a. The Arbitrator erred in failing to find that the Board's past practice should prevail in the calculation of the vested retirement payment and windup payment;
b. Article 24.04(e) of the collective agreement has no application to the calculation of the payments because it is meant to apply only to the determination of a teacher's placement on the salary grid; and
c. The Arbitrator erred in his application of the estoppel doctrine.
[28] While the Board also challenges the Second Arbitration Decision, it does not do so directly, but only in conjunction with its challenge to the first decision.
Standard of review
[29] The parties agree, correctly, that the standard of review is reasonableness: Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. v. Manitoba Association of Health care professionals, 2014 SCC 70, at para. 42.[^2]
[30] In applying the standard of reasonableness, in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, at para. 47, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Court is concerned with whether the decision is intelligible, transparent and justifiable, and with whether the decision "falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law".
Analysis
Whether past practice should prevail
[31] The Board argues that the arbitrator erred in not applying past practice to the calculation of the vested retirement payments and gratuity payments. In making this argument the Board relies on the note in the Memorandum of Understanding that states that years of service "shall be as defined in the 2008-2012 collective agreement or as per policy or practice of the Board for retirement gratuity purposes". The Board argues that the reference to "practice" makes clear that the calculation should be based on its past practice for calculating years of service. Prior to the 2012 changes, the Board’s practice was to round up partial years of service to the next fourth decimal point and not to the next full year. The Board argues that the Arbitrator should have found that this past practice applies to the calculation of vested retirement payments and gratuity payments, and should have rejected the Federation’s argument that the years of service were to be rounded up to the next full year.
[32] As reviewed above, the Arbitrator explicitly dealt with this argument in his decision, rejecting it for a number of reasons, which in my view are supported by the regulations Memorandum of Understanding and collective agreement.
[33] The Arbitrator found that, given that what is at issue in this case is the calculation of windup payments and vested retirement payments, neither of which existed prior to 2012, there was in fact no past practice for the calculation of these new types of payments. This is a reasonable description of changes implemented in 2012. Windup payments and vested retirement payments were agreed to and implemented as a compromise for the termination of teachers’ entitlement to payments for unused sick days up to the time of retirement. While there are obvious similarities between each of these payment schemes, they are in fact not the same.
[34] The Arbitrator also found that, given the reference to the 2008-2012 collective agreement in the note in the Memorandum of Understanding, the intent was clearly to give precedence to what was provided for in the agreement, and only if it was not provided for would past practice be relevant. As I explain below, the Arbitrator’s interpretation of the regulations, Memorandum of Understanding and collective agreement are reasonable and support his conclusion that the collective agreement does provide a method for calculating years of service. It was therefore reasonable for the Arbitrator to find that past practice will only be resorted to for matters not addressed in the collective agreement and that the collective agreement does provide an answer in this case.
Whether Article 24.04(e) is relevant to the calculation
[35] The Board argues that, even if past practice was not relevant to the calculation of years of service, the Arbitrator erred in finding that Article 24.04(e) was relevant to the calculation given that, on its face, this provision deals with the placement of teachers on the salary grid and not the calculation of years of service for the purpose of calculating payments for unused sick days.
[36] Again, the Arbitrator considered and rejected this argument. He found that it was clearly the intent of the parties that Article 24 as a whole was to apply to the calculation of years of service for the purpose of calculating the entitlement of to a payment upon retirement for unused sick days. Under the circumstances, there was no basis for excluding Article 24.04(e) from this calculation.
[37] The Arbitrator followed what he considered to be the path from 26.04 to 24.04(e). In my view, that path is supported by the wording of the relevant provisions of the collective agreement.
[38] First, Article 26.04 provides that "the amount of the allowance payable shall be calculated as follows for accumulated service as defined in Article 26.01(b)". Therefore, in order to determine a teacher's accumulated service for the purpose of calculating the allowance, it is necessary to refer to 26.01(b).
[39] 26.01(b) provides that "A teacher has an accumulated minimum total of 10 years of service with the Board that qualify for step placement". At this point, the only potentially relevant portion of this provision to the calculation of accumulated service is the reference to "step placement".
[40] I note that the Board does not dispute that Article 24, which deals with step placement, is relevant; the Board only takes issue with the relevance of Article 24.04(e). Article 24 provides that "In determining the position of a Teacher on the Teacher Experience Schedule, a Teacher shall be granted experience for the following…". The Article then provides a long list of what counts as experience for the purpose of step placement, including Article 24.04(e), which provides as follows:
If a Teacher has taught a fraction of a full year, then the number of years teaching experience shall be calculated by pro-rating the exact number of days worked by the Teacher in the school year, in the exact proportion to the total number of school days in the school year. Any fraction of cumulative teaching experience which (sic) is equivalent to .500 or more shall be counted as one year. (emphasis added)
[41] In his decision, the Arbitrator found that rounding up to a full year was clearly provided for based on the path from 26.04 to 26.01(b) to 24.04(e). The issue on this application is whether this finding was unreasonable.
[42] The Board argues that it was unreasonable because article 24.04(e) is meant to be used for the purpose of arriving at whole numbers for placement on the teacher salary grid, which has nothing to do with the calculation of the allowance. In addition, the Board points out that the salary grid ends at 10 years, and entitlement to the allowance starts at 10 years.
[43] On its face, this argument makes some sense. However, it ignores the wording of Article 26.04, which explicitly states that accumulated service is to be as defined in Article 26.01(b), which in turn makes reference to "step placement". While Article 26.01(b) may not be as clear as it could be in signaling its relevance to calculating "accumulated service", its only possible relevance is the reference to "step placement". In turn, while step placement is about placement on the salary grid, reference to step placement in Article 26, which is the article dealing with the allowance, does signal an intention that the calculation of service for the purpose of placement on the grid is meant to be used for calculating accumulated service for the purpose of the allowance. Once Article 24 becomes relevant, as found by the Arbitrator, there is no principled reason for excluding Article 24.04(e). In fact, Article 26.04 itself suggests that the years of service are meant to be in full year increments given the reference to the amount payable at Article 26.04 a) for “ten years’ service” and at Article 26.04 b) for “each additional year of service”.
[44] Accordingly, while the "step placement" concept may not fit perfectly, the wording of Article 26 does support the Arbitrator's conclusion that Article 24.04(e) is meant to be used for calculating accumulated service. In order words, his line of reasoning is supported by the relevant provisions of the collective agreement, and his decision falls within a range of reasonable outcomes and is therefore reasonable.
Whether the Arbitrator's conclusion on estoppel was reasonable
[45] The Board argues that the Arbitrator should have found that the Federation was estopped from raising the issue of rounding up the years of service. In particular, the Board argues that the process for paying out the vested retirement payments and the windup payments included timelines for disputing the calculations made by the Board, but the Federation only raised these issues after the timelines had elapsed.
[46] In his decision, as reviewed above, the Arbitrator rejected the Board's estoppel argument on the grounds that the teachers are contractually entitled to the amounts at issue, and the Board had presented no evidence that it was unable to pay.
[47] In order to succeed in making an estoppel argument, the Board would have to show that, 1) by words or conduct, the Federation made an unequivocal representation, 2) the representation was intended to be relied on by the Board and 3) the Board relied on that promise to its detriment.
[48] In Nor-Man, at para. 55, the Supreme Court recognized that labour arbitrators have the necessary expertise to apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the context of labour disputes.
[49] In this case, the Arbitrator held that in order to make a finding that “employees are to be deprived of the full amount of the funds on account of an alleged inability to pay would require the clearest possible evidence of that inability tied directly to that representation”. The Arbitrator found that evidence of this “simply does not and, I believe, could not exist”.
[50] This is a factual finding, and I see no basis for interfering with the Arbitrator's conclusion on this issue.
Conclusion
[51] For the reasons above, I find that the Arbitrator's decision was reasonable and the application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
[52] At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties advised us that they had agreed that the successful party on the application would be entitled to costs in the amount of $10,000. The Federation is therefore entitled to costs of $10,000.
FAVREAU J.
I agree _______________________________
R. SMITH J.
I agree _______________________________
D.L. CORBETT J.
RELEASED: October 24, 2019
CORRECTION NOTICE
Corrected decision: the text of the original judgment was corrected on October 28, 2019, and the description of the correction is appended:
On paragraph 39, first line, the words “of service with” were added to the quote “a teacher has an accumulated minimum total of 10 years …”
On paragraph 43 “article 24.01(e)” on the third line from the bottom has been changed to “article 24.04(e)”.
On paragraph 44, second line “article 24.01(e)” has been changed to “article 24.04(e)”.
CITATION: Peel District School Board v. Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 19 (Ontario) 2019 ONSC 6172
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 551/18
DATE: 20191024
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
R. Smith, D. Corbett, Favreau JJ.
B E T W E E N :
PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ FEDERATION, DISTRICT 19
Respondent
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FAVREAU J.
RELEASED: October 24, 2019
[^1]: X.500 years of service refers to a teacher’s years of service calculated to the fourth decimal. For example, a teacher with 10 years and 6 months of years of service will have 10.500 years of service, and a teacher with 6 years and 9 months of service will have 6.750 years of service.
[^2]: In its factum, the Board submitted that the Arbitrator “erred” in his decision, suggesting a correctness standard of review. However, during the oral argument, the Board agreed that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness and argued that the Arbitrator’s decision was not just wrong but that it was unreasonable.