Employment and Labour Law - ODC

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the claim based on an arbitration clause in a collective agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to consider whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The parties agreed the order was final.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision determining he was not entitled to severance pay under s. 64 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board had concluded that the employer's payroll calculation for the $2.5 million threshold was restricted to its Ontario payroll, excluding its global payroll.

The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation unreasonable, holding that the calculation of payroll under s. 64 is not restricted to Ontario employment and must include global payroll.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award finding it breached the collective agreement by transferring work to a different geographic location.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted the scope of the 'Work of the Bargaining Unit' clause and failed to find that bargaining unit members were deprived of overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable based on its express wording and context.

The Court also found the arbitrator made the requisite factual finding regarding the deprivation of overtime, which was owed deference.

The applicants sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying them intervener status in a labour grievance between a union and an employer regarding alleged subcontracting violations.

The applicants argued the grievance would adversely affect their ability to work and supply workers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the arbitrator's finding that the applicants lacked a direct and legal interest in the private dispute resolution process between the union and the employer.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to a 15-month delay.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by imposing page limits, was biased, rendered an unreasonable decision, and violated his s. 15 Charter rights by applying a presumption of prejudice for delayed complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedural directions fair, the delay analysis reasonable, and the Charter claim unfounded as the presumption applies equally to all parties and does not discriminate on analogous grounds.

The appellant, a 69-year-old legal assistant, was terminated without cause after 15 years of service.

A motions judge awarded her a 12-month notice period, subject to a 10% contingency reduction for the final two months.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, seeking a 24-month notice period and arguing the motions judge erred in applying the Bardal factors and the contingency reduction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle, no unreasonable findings of fact, and that the notice period fell within an acceptable range.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application concerns an arbitrator's decision regarding a grievance filed after a union member was sexually assaulted at work.

The court scheduled the motion to proceed before a single judge of the Divisional Court by ZOOM videoconference in October 2020 and set out the timetable for serving and filing materials.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule an appeal from a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal case.

The court directed that the appeal be heard by a three-judge panel via Zoom and set out a timetable and procedural requirements for the filing of electronic materials, factums, and compendiums.

The City of Brockville applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of redacted legal fee invoices related to collective bargaining.

The city argued the records were entirely excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations exclusion in s. 52(3)2.

Applying the Vavilov reasonableness standard, the Divisional Court upheld the adjudicator's decision, finding it was reasonable to conclude that the connection between labour relations and accounting documents detailing public expenditures was insufficient to trigger the exclusion.

A case management endorsement setting out the procedural schedule and directions for three related applications between the applicant employer and the respondent association.

The court ordered that the applications be heard together by a bilingual panel via ZOOM videoconference.

Directions were provided for the electronic filing of materials, including the use of a password-protected drop box, hyperlinked factums, and the avoidance of unnecessary duplication in the record.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two interlocutory arbitration decisions concerning the termination of an employee.

The respondent hospital argued the applications were premature because the arbitration process was not yet complete.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances justified judicial intervention before the arbitrator had issued a final decision on the merits.

The applications for judicial review were dismissed as premature.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The employer argued the termination clause was valid because the employee, as a construction worker, was exempt from statutory notice under the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an employment contract cannot contract out of protected employment standards, even if those standards do not currently apply to the employee.

The termination clause was void because it potentially violated the ESA by denying benefits and severance pay if the employee's position or the employer's size changed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award dismissing its grievance against the employer airline.

The union claimed the employer breached a promise made during collective bargaining not to award travel passes with a higher priority to any other unionized group.

The arbitrator found the promise was narrow and did not extend to discretionary special passes awarded to pilots.

The Divisional Court held the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and that the arbitrator did not err in failing to address a sex discrimination argument that was not properly raised at the hearing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation by deciding not to pursue his grievances to arbitration following his layoff.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Board's use of a consultation process rather than a formal oral hearing did not violate the principles of procedural fairness.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order denying its request to file an affidavit as part of its record in an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The applicant argued that the affidavit was necessary to show the Board's findings of fact were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law by the motion judge, who was bound by established precedent that restricts the admission of new affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The applicants, graduate students and teaching assistants at York University, sought judicial review of a University Tribunal decision disciplining them for misconduct during a legal strike.

The Tribunal had assumed jurisdiction under the Student Code.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the essential character of the dispute was labour-related and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the Labour Relations Act and the Back to Class Act.

The Court also found exceptional circumstances to hear the judicial review despite the applicants not exhausting internal appeals, and noted the Tribunal's process was procedurally unfair.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision regarding salary protection for downwardly reclassified employees.

The arbitrator found the provision unambiguously entitled these employees to economic increases and revisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation, treatment of estoppel, and refusal to use extrinsic evidence to create ambiguity were reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that the arbitrator breached natural justice by citing authorities not provided by the parties, as no novel issue was raised.

The applicant brought a motion under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The motion judge had dismissed the applicant's request to file four affidavits in support of its application for judicial review of a labour arbitration decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law.

The court agreed that the proposed affidavits, which detailed oral submissions made before the arbitrator, were an impermissible attempt to supplement the record and did not fall within the narrow exceptions for admitting affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming a compliance order that required the applicant to pay overtime to employees at its centralized sweet corn processing facility.

The Board had found that the facility was not a 'farm' and the work was not 'directly related to primary production' under the farm worker exemption in Regulation 285/01.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was unreasonable because it disregarded uncontradicted expert and operational evidence, adopted an arbitrary interpretation that created absurd results, and failed to properly balance the protective purpose of the exemption.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the court declared that the farm worker exemption applied to the employees.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court trial judgment.

The original trial judge became ill and could not render a decision.

The Local Administrative Judge advised the parties that a new judge would issue a written judgment based on transcripts if all parties consented; otherwise, a motion for rehearing was required.

The respondent consented, but the appellant did not respond.

Despite the lack of consent or a motion, a deputy judge issued a decision in favour of the respondent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the appellant was denied the opportunity to be heard on the procedure for rehearing, and ordered a new trial before a different deputy judge.