Sean T. McGee

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding a union grievance regarding teacher lunch breaks.

The school board had directed teachers to receive students in their classrooms five minutes before the start of afternoon classes, which the union argued violated the collective agreement's provision for a lunch period free of assigned tasks.

The arbitrator found that the school board had voluntarily fettered its discretion under O. Reg. 298 by agreeing to the collective agreement provision.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the regulation and collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to close the Collège des Grands Lacs, a francophone college.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to the applicants' undue delay of 29 months in perfecting the application, which caused significant prejudice.

In the alternative, the court found that the Minister did not breach the unwritten constitutional principle of protection of minorities, as the college was failing and alternative francophone education was arranged.

The court also held that the Minister had the statutory authority to close the college and the decision was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award dismissing a grievance for being filed outside the time limit set out in the collective agreement.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to provide reasons for rejecting a request to extend the time limit under the Canada Labour Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's failure to provide reasons on a subsidiary issue did not amount to a breach of natural justice or render the decision patently unreasonable, as the applicant had failed to adduce evidence justifying an extension.

The respondent was offered a public service position subject to obtaining a security clearance.

CSIS advised against granting the clearance, and the Deputy Minister denied it.

The respondent complained to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which recommended granting the clearance.

The Deputy Minister refused to follow the recommendation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word 'recommendations' in section 52(2) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act should be given its ordinary meaning of offering advice, and does not constitute a binding decision.

The Deputy Minister retains the ultimate authority and responsibility to grant or deny security clearances.