Stephen F. Gleave

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal adding a former human resources administrator as a respondent party to an unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the Tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the administrator as a party, as the complaint contained no allegations that she personally breached the Agricultural Employees Protection Act.

The Court dismissed the bias allegations, finding that the applicants had waived their objections and failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

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 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 applicants, parents of children at Arthur District High School, sought judicial review of the Upper Grand District School Board's decision to close the school.

They argued the Board failed to comply with statutory duties and its own accommodation review policy, thereby denying the community meaningful participation in the decision-making process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had considered numerous alternatives, provided necessary information, and afforded the community a fair opportunity to participate in the consultation process.

The appellant employer appealed a motion judge's order regarding the plaintiff employee's claim for long-term disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in finding the collective agreement's benefits terms fell within Brown & Beatty's third category.

The language of the collective agreement and Letter of Understanding clearly incorporated the benefits plan into the collective agreement, meaning disputes over entitlement must be submitted to arbitration.

The appeal was allowed and the civil action against the employer was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the court received submissions to determine the quantum of costs payable to the self-represented respondent.

The respondent claimed $7,351, while the appellant argued for $1,100.

The Court of Appeal fixed costs at $3,500 on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the award is limited to costs in the Court of Appeal and that certain claimed disbursements, such as medications, are not recoverable under the Tariff.

The appellant school board appealed a decision refusing to stay the respondent's Small Claims Court action.

The appellant argued that the respondent was arguably a member of the union, and an arbitrator should determine if the collective agreement applied under s. 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' conclusion that the respondent was not a union member, as the appellant failed to meet its evidentiary onus.

In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal applied Rule 49.10(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant (defendant at trial) had made a pre-trial offer to settle that exceeded the quantum of damages ultimately awarded by the court.

Consequently, the respondent (plaintiff) was awarded party-and-party costs up to the date of the offer, and the appellant was awarded party-and-party costs from that date to the conclusion of the trial, as well as the costs of the appeal.

The respondent employee was wrongfully dismissed after refusing to relocate to Ohio.

The trial judge awarded damages based on an 18-month notice period, including $49,293.97 for pension loss, and found the respondent had properly mitigated his damages by starting a consulting business.

The employer appealed the mitigation finding and the pension loss award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the mitigation finding but allowed the appeal regarding the pension loss.

The Court held that the trial judge erred by failing to account for the pension benefits the respondent received during the notice period, which actually increased the overall present value of his pension, and by improperly grossing up the award for tax purposes.