Employment and Labour Law - ONSCDC

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that denied its right to recover wage overpayments made to employees due to a mistake of fact.

The arbitrator had found that the union established the defence of estoppel and that the collective agreement provision relied on the employer only governed the process for recovery, not the absolute entitlement to it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that labour arbitrators have flexibility in applying equitable doctrines like estoppel without requiring a formal, detailed analysis of every component.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers finding her guilty of professional misconduct for physically and emotionally abusing a special needs student and for unprofessional conduct towards colleagues.

The appellant argued that the Committee erred by excluding expert evidence on anti-Black racism, failing to address unconscious bias, improperly assessing credibility, and admitting an investigation report containing hearsay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual findings or credibility assessments.

While the Committee erred in relying on prior consistent statements, the error did not result in a substantial wrong.

The penalty of a five-month suspension and costs was upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions dismissing her applications against her former employer and union.

She alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to file grievances for post-layoff job applications, and claimed the OLRB process was procedurally unfair and biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bias, that the OLRB's written hearing process afforded procedural fairness, and that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union, as well as a subsequent reconsideration decision.

The complaint arose after the union withdrew several of the applicant's grievances related to discipline he received for refusing to sign a training registration form due to privacy concerns.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decisions were justified, intelligible, and procedurally fair.

The application for judicial review was dismissed without costs.

The appellant, a federal public servant, appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking her defamation claim against a colleague for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion judge had ruled that the dispute fell within the exclusive grievance procedures of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued her legal representative provided ineffective assistance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence and the appeal, confirming that the essential character of the dispute was employment-related and the statutory grievance process ousted the court's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that upheld an employment standards officer's orders for unpaid wages to the individual respondents.

The applicant argued the respondents were never employees and raised issues of procedural fairness regarding witness coaching.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably relied on documentary evidence due to credibility issues on both sides, and held there was no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings or its failure to address an alternative argument not raised before it.

The applicant, an adjunct professor, sought judicial review of the respondent university's decision not to proceed with her complaint regarding an open letter signed by students concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The university had appointed an external reviewer who concluded the students did not breach the student code of conduct.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to decline to hear the judicial review application, finding that adequate alternative forums, such as a grievance under the collective agreement or an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, were more appropriate to address the applicant's concerns.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Governors to remove him from his position for adequate cause.

The removal followed findings that he engaged in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable student, hired another student with whom he had a sexual relationship without disclosing the conflict of interest, and used a dating website to flirt with an undergraduate student.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the hearing was procedurally fair and the decision to remove the applicant was reasonable, intelligible, and justified given the serious breach of trust and abuse of power.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of a terminated employee's separation allowance under a collective agreement.

The employer argued the arbitrator's findings on the start date, leaves of absence, and part-time pro-rating were unreasonable, and that the refusal to allow viva voce evidence breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The court also held that the employer was afforded procedural fairness, as the parties had agreed to proceed by written submissions and the proposed viva voce evidence would not have affected the outcome.

The appellant employee commenced a Small Claims Court action for wrongful dismissal against the individual owners of his former employer.

After the two-year limitation period expired, he amended his claim to add the corporate employer as a defendant.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the claim against the corporate employer as statute-barred.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant knew or ought to have known of his claim against the corporate entity on the date of his termination.

The court also rejected the argument that adding the corporate defendant was merely correcting a misnomer.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify a class action against a temporary help agency for alleged employee misclassification.

The motion judge had found that the proposed common issues regarding whether the agency was an employer under the Employment Standards Act or at common law lacked sufficient commonality and required individual determinations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no systemic commonality among the putative class members' arrangements.

Leave to appeal the costs award of $333,114.05 was also denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application.

The applicant had alleged that his termination during his probationary period was based on sex discrimination and reprisal.

The HRTO found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no evidence connecting his termination to a protected ground.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision was logical and justified.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision that struck the personal respondents and dismissed his human rights application at a summary hearing.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision to strike the personal respondents was reasonable, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

However, the court held the HRTO unreasonably dismissed the application by failing to justify its conclusion that there was 'no evidence' of discrimination despite the applicant's factual assertions.

Furthermore, the HRTO breached procedural fairness by ordering a summary hearing after a previous Vice-Chair had already directed a merits hearing which had commenced.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO for a merits hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on creed after her employment was terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, found no denial of procedural fairness, and concluded that the Tribunal's determination that the applicant's singular belief against the vaccine did not constitute a 'creed' under the Human Rights Code was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the calculation of partial-day absences for relief letter carriers.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreement did not require rounding up daily totals of partial absences and had considered the union's history of withdrawing similar grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and use of extrinsic evidence were justified and internally coherent.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated two employees terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The arbitrator had ruled that an employer can never discipline an employee for refusing to consent to medical treatment.

The Divisional Court found this conclusion unreasonable, as it failed to balance the hospital's duty to protect patients against the employees' privacy interests in the context of a pandemic.

However, the court upheld the arbitrator's ultimate decision to reinstate the employees, noting that terminating them after only two weeks of unpaid leave was premature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision upholding a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of 80 hours' forfeited pay.

The misconduct stemmed from a $50 anonymous donation the applicant made to the 'Freedom Convoy' protests while on unpaid leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude the protests were illegal and that the limitation on the applicant's freedom of expression was proportionate to the statutory objectives of maintaining effective policing.

The court also upheld the Commission's refusal to hear a new abuse of process argument on appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his appeal of a Ministry of Labour Field Visit Report for delay and denying reconsideration.

The applicant had filed his appeal approximately 17 months after the 30-day statutory deadline.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board provided procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to provide a cogent explanation for the delay.

The court also denied the applicant's request to introduce fresh evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing his complaint that the Toronto Police Association breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been terminated following a refusal to sign a last chance agreement related to his alcohol use disorder.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision reasonable, noting the Association had supported the applicant for four years and reasonably concluded the employer's settlement offer was appropriate.

The court also dismissed allegations of bias and human rights violations.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding her dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The charges stemmed from her failure to attend internal investigations and her use of a personal Twitter account to make inappropriate comments about the Chief of Police and others.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and accommodation for her post-traumatic stress disorder, and that her dismissal infringed her Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing officer reasonably accommodated her and properly proceeded in her absence.

The Court also upheld the Commission's finding that sections 7 and 15 of the Charter were not engaged, and that her dismissal was a proportionate limit on her freedom of expression under section 2(b).