6 total
Motions to intervene by several unions denied as their interest was solely based on potential precedential effect.
Several trade unions and the Canadian Labour Congress brought motions for leave to intervene as added parties or as friends of the court in an action challenging the constitution of the Amalgamated Transit Union.
The moving parties argued they had an interest in the proceeding because their own constitutions contained similar provisions and they could be adversely affected by the precedent.
The court dismissed the motions, finding that an interest based solely on the potential precedential effect of a decision is insufficient for intervention as an added party under Rule 13.01.
The court also denied leave to intervene as friends of the court under Rule 13.02, concluding that the proposed interveners' submissions would largely duplicate the arguments of the defendant union and would not provide a materially different perspective.
The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal a discretionary CCAA order regarding retiree benefits.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal a CCAA judge's decision dismissing their motion to reinstate other post-employment benefits (OPEBs) to retirees of U.S. Steel Canada Inc. The CCAA judge had dismissed the motion but ordered a one-time payment of $2.7 million towards benefits.
The Court of Appeal applied the stringent test for leave to appeal in CCAA proceedings and found no prima facie merit to the appeal.
The court emphasized the broad discretion of the CCAA judge and the fact-specific nature of the decision, which did not raise issues of significance to insolvency practice.
Leave to appeal was denied with costs fixed at $2,500.
Court awards reduced partial indemnity costs after successful application.
Following a successful application declaring the applicant remained president and a member of a union organization, the court addressed costs.
The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs relying on an informal settlement offer and alleged improper conduct by the respondents in attempting to remove him from office.
The court held that the circumstances required for substantial indemnity costs were not present, including the absence of a valid Rule 49 offer or litigation misconduct.
Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court reduced the applicant’s requested costs due to litigation conduct, including late retention of counsel and a shift in litigation position.
Appeal allowed and arbitrator's decision quashed based on the dissenting reasons in the Divisional Court.
The appellant union appealed an order of the Divisional Court regarding an arbitrator's decision.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting reasons of Aston J. at the Divisional Court.
The Divisional Court's order was set aside, the arbitrator's decision was quashed, and costs of $10,000 were awarded to the appellant.
Arbitrator's decision upheld; employee had statutory right to choose initial health professional and could refuse contrary directive.
The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee's refusal to follow a directive to go to a hospital emergency department.
The arbitrator found that under s. 33(1) of the Act, the employee had the right to make the initial choice of health professional, and that the 'obey now, grieve later' rule did not apply because grieving later would be meaningless.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the statute correct and the application of the 'obey now, grieve later' exception reasonable.
Judicial review of OLRB decision dismissed as the Board's refusal to hear a delayed complaint was not patently unreasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing his complaint against his union for failing to advance his grievance to arbitration, and denying reconsideration.
The OLRB had dismissed the complaint due to a 16-year delay and prejudice to the respondents, rejecting the applicant's medical explanation.
The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decisions were not patently unreasonable and dismissed the applicant's allegations of bias and Charter discrimination.
The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.