Employment and Labour Law - ONSCDC

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his discrimination application at a summary hearing.

The HRTO had found that most of his allegations were out of time and did not constitute a 'series of incidents' under the Human Rights Code, and that he had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the HRTO misapplied the case law regarding a series of incidents and denied the applicant procedural fairness by restricting his submissions on available evidence.

The matter was remitted to the HRTO for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of the OLRB's refusal to extend the time to appeal an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Pending the hearing, the applicant brought a motion for a stay of the OLRB's orders, to admit fresh evidence, and to deliver a Notice of Constitutional Question.

The court dismissed the request for a stay, noting that staying a refusal to extend time has no practical effect.

The court deferred the issue of fresh evidence to the panel hearing the application.

The request to deliver a Notice of Constitutional Question was dismissed because the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to hear general Charter and human rights complaints in this judicial review proceeding.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its unfair labour practice complaint without a hearing.

The complaint alleged that the respondents improperly applied a local collective agreement over a provincial agreement in the construction industry.

The Divisional Court held that the application was not premature despite the applicant's failure to seek reconsideration from the Board.

However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board had reasonably concluded that the two collective agreements could co-exist, that inquiring into the complaint served no labour relations purpose since the affected employer did not participate, and that the declaratory relief sought was of limited practical utility.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitral award that denied its members a paid holiday on September 19, 2022, the day set aside to honour the memory of Queen Elizabeth II.

The collective agreement provided for holidays declared under the Bills of Exchange Act.

The arbitrator found that the Governor in Council's proclamation 'requested' rather than 'appointed' the day, and thus did not meet the statutory requirements for a legal holiday.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding his interpretation of the collective agreement and statutory context to be transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The self-represented appellant filed an appeal in the Divisional Court instead of the Court of Appeal over ten years ago.

After a decade of inaction, the appellant brought a motion under section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the proper court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and the appeal, finding that the underlying appeal regarding the respondent's compliance with an arbitration award had no reasonable chance of success.

Furthermore, the court found that transferring the matter after such an extreme and unexplained delay would cause undue prejudice to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his defamation claim against his former employer.

The motion judge had struck the claim on the basis that a termination letter sent to an employment agency was not 'published' to the public, and alternatively, that the appellant failed to provide notice under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that publication to a single third party satisfies the test for defamation, and that the s. 5(1) notice requirement does not apply to private emails or letters.

The defamation claim was restored.

Two teachers' unions sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding collective bargaining with the Crown.

The OLRB had dismissed OSSTF's claim of bad faith bargaining, finding the Crown did not misrepresent its position on grid movement grievances.

The OLRB upheld ETFO's claim of bad faith bargaining but declined to award monetary damages, instead ordering a declaration and notice to members.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed both applications, finding the OLRB's factual findings, inferences, and remedial choices were logical, transparent, and entitled to deference given its labour relations expertise.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent employees within only one division of the company.

The employer argued the Board unreasonably departed from practice by certifying a unit within a division that is not a legal entity, and ignored serious labour relations harm.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably applied the principle that a union's proposed unit will be granted unless it causes serious labour relations problems, and reasonably concluded the employer failed to demonstrate such harm.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of 'full net pay' for disabled firefighters under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that the employer could deduct notional OMERS pension plan contributions from the calculation of full net pay, even when the employee had a disability waiver in place, to ensure continuity of take-home pay rather than providing a windfall.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was justified and unassailable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek judicial review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering her to pay unpaid wages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under section 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedures Act.

Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate apparent grounds for relief because she failed to pursue an adequate alternative remedy before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and she failed to show that the delay would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent employee.

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of a grievance arbitrator's decision that granted retroactive statutory holiday benefits to union members for the National Day of Mourning for Queen Elizabeth II.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreements only required a day to be 'proclaimed' by the Governor General to become a paid holiday.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the decision, finding the arbitrator's interpretation unreasonable as it failed to consider the parties' mutual intention and led to the absurd result that any symbolic proclamation would create an additional paid holiday.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's refusal to order the respondent employer to restrict the operation of an overhead crane to workers holding a specific mobile crane certificate.

By the time of the hearing, the construction project had concluded, rendering the underlying dispute moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no special circumstances.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Board's interpretation of the occupational health and safety regulations was reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation application against her union.

The OLRB had dismissed the application partly due to delay and partly for failing to establish a prima facie case that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith regarding her termination grievance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the OLRB's conclusions regarding delay or the lack of a prima facie case.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application as out of time, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace investigation did not form part of a 'series of incidents' with earlier alleged discriminatory acts by a dean, and thus the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decisions, finding that the HRTO reasonably concluded the investigation was discrete and separate from the earlier incidents, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration decision that excluded temporary teachers (those without Ontario College of Teachers membership) from the occasional teachers' bargaining unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator did not breach procedural fairness, as the parties were invited to make submissions on the determinative issue.

The Court also held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014, requiring occasional teachers to be on the board's roster to be included in the bargaining unit, was reasonable.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Review and Appeal Board (HPARB) confirming the revocation of her hospital privileges by the respondent hospital.

The revocation was based on a long-standing pattern of unprofessional conduct, inability to collaborate with colleagues, and failure to improve, which jeopardized patient safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB's factual and credibility findings were firmly grounded in the evidence and that it correctly applied the test under the Public Hospitals Act and hospital by-laws.