Sukhmani Virdi

The applicant sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions dismissing her applications against her former employer and union.

She alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to file grievances for post-layoff job applications, and claimed the OLRB process was procedurally unfair and biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bias, that the OLRB's written hearing process afforded procedural fairness, and that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed a union grievance regarding the assignment of bargaining unit work to management personnel.

The arbitrator found that a bargaining unit member was available for the assignment, despite not meeting the specific conditions of the Auxiliary Board, and that the employer breached the collective agreement by using a manager.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and finding of availability were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions arising from her layoff and a letter of expectation.

The respondents argued the application was premature because one of the applicant's four OLRB applications was still ongoing following a successful reconsideration request.

The Divisional Court agreed that proceeding with the judicial review while related OLRB proceedings were ongoing would risk fragmentation and inconsistent findings.

The court adjourned the application for judicial review until the final decision on the outstanding OLRB application.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision confirming his jurisdiction over certain conductor-only grievances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the arbitrator had only determined he remained seized of the process to decide the scope of his authority, but had not yet ruled on whether the specific lead grievances were arbitrable.

The court noted that any challenge to the arbitrator's general jurisdiction should have been brought after his initial 2018 interlocutory order.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's supplemental award regarding a policy grievance over the disclosure of employee medical information.

The arbitrator had ruled that the employer's policy, which allowed disclosure of medical information beyond functional limitations without consent, was of no force and effect.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably concluded he had jurisdiction to address the policy and reasonably applied established arbitral principles limiting the disclosure of employee health records to functional abilities for accommodation purposes.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of pay for personal leave days taken by a locomotive engineer under the Canada Labour Code.

The arbitrator found that because the collective agreement did not specifically provide a method for calculating personal leave pay, the default calculation under s. 17(a) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations applied, rather than the 'basic day' rate argued by the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the legislation and the collective agreement was reasonable and consistent with the purpose of ensuring employees do not suffer a wage loss when taking personal leave.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a single judge's order dismissing its application for judicial review for delay.

The Divisional Court panel first granted an extension of time to hear the late-filed motion.

On the merits, the panel held that the standard of review is deferential and the motion judge did not err in finding that an 11-month delay, combined with an insufficient explanation and prejudice to the respondent, warranted dismissal.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The employer and seven employees sought judicial review of two decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board: a decision certifying the union as the bargaining agent for a unit of carpenters, and a decision dismissing requests for reconsideration.

The applicants argued the decisions were procedurally unfair because they were made without a hearing, and unreasonable because the Board failed to properly consider allegations that the union organizer used misrepresentation to obtain signed membership cards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's specialized procedures permitted it to decide the matter without a hearing, and that its decisions were rational, logical, and tenable based on the evidence and submissions.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the applicant employer's application for judicial review for delay.

The employer had failed to perfect its application within the court-ordered timetable or the 30-day period under the Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in a delay of at least 11 months.

The court found the delay excessive, the employer's explanation unreasonable, and noted prejudice to the union due to the prolonged uncertainty and the employer's attempt to substantively amend its application.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) declaration.

The OLRB had declared Enercare Home & Commercial Services Limited Partnership, Ganeh Energy Services Ltd., and Beaver Energy Services Ltd. to be related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but not Perras Mechanical Services Ltd. The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decision unreasonable for failing to consider bargaining history and collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, and restored the OLRB's original decision.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award which held that, although the employer had the authority to change the pension plan under the collective agreement, it was estopped from freezing the Defined Benefits component until the expiry of the agreement.

The arbitrator found the employer made a clear representation in 1999 that employees choosing the Defined Benefits plan would remain in it until retirement, and the union detrimentally relied on this by losing the opportunity to negotiate protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's application of the doctrine of estoppel and his factual findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.