Shaheen Hirani

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a grievor who had been discharged for fraudulent misconduct, substituting a ten-day suspension.

The arbitrator found the employer engaged in discriminatory treatment because other employees who committed similar misconduct received significantly lighter penalties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably shifted the evidentiary onus to the employer after the union established a prima facie case of discriminatory discipline, and reasonably concluded the penalty was appropriate.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing grievances related to pension grow-in benefits for employees who were indefinitely laid off following a plant idling.

The arbitrator found the employees were not terminated by the employer, but rather terminated their own employment by electing to take severance pay instead of retaining recall rights.

The Divisional Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the arbitrator's failure to consider section 4(2) of O. Reg. 288/01 under the Employment Standards Act constituted a fundamental gap in reasoning.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator for a new hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a resolution by the Trent University Board of Governors authorizing a capital development project that could involve closing or relocating two colleges.

The applicants argued the Board lacked jurisdiction without a concurring motion from the University Senate, which had passed a resolution opposing any change of location.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the Trent University Act, the Board has plenary and exclusive jurisdiction over the university's property, revenues, and expenditures, while the Senate's jurisdiction is limited to educational policy.