Sean M. Sells

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding the termination of three employees for assaulting a replacement worker during a strike.

The arbitrator found the assault was premeditated and unprovoked, and that the employees were dishonest during the proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's findings of fact were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and entitled to the highest level of deference.

The self-represented applicant filed a Request for Review of a Financial Services Tribunal decision regarding the University of Toronto Pension Plan.

Although the applicant missed the filing deadline by a few hours, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Request for Review on the merits, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review.

The applicant merely attempted to reargue issues already decided and did not present any new evidence or arguments that were not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing.

The applicant, a retired teacher, alleged that the survivor benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminated on the basis of sex and marital status.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the alleged discrimination did not constitute a series of incidents, but rather a single incident with continuing effects that occurred either upon the applicant's retirement or his subsequent remarriage.

As the application was filed more than a year after these events and the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay, the application was dismissed as untimely.

The appellants, former commercial insurance salespeople for the respondent, resigned and joined a competitor, subsequently soliciting clients from the respondent.

The respondent successfully sued for breach of a restrictive covenant at trial.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the clause was an unenforceable non-competition clause rather than a non-solicitation clause, as it contained no geographical limit and broadly prohibited conducting business.

The appeal was allowed and the trial judgment was set aside.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee without just cause and awarding Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of wrongful dismissal, noting that while the trial judge did not explicitly refer to the McKinley framework, his factual findings supported the conclusion that the misconduct did not warrant dismissal for cause.

However, the Court set aside the award of Wallace damages because the trial judge based the award on serious findings of misconduct (conspiracy and bad faith counterclaim) that were neither pleaded nor argued by the respondent, depriving the appellant of an opportunity to respond.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award and a decision of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission.

The arbitrator had dismissed a grievance regarding the inclusion of cadet service in the calculation of 'continuous active service' for a seniority premium, finding he lacked jurisdiction to define the term as the parties had not yet done so.

The Commission subsequently refused to appoint a conciliation officer, finding no notice to bargain had been given for the current collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review for the arbitration award was patent unreasonableness and for the Commission's decision was reasonableness.

The Court found neither decision met the threshold for intervention and dismissed both applications for judicial review.