Tim Gleason

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing their application.

They argued that the Vice-Chair should have recused himself because he had previously acted as a lawyer for one of the applicants in a related matter.

The Divisional Court found that the Vice-Chair misunderstood the test for conflict of interest and the appearance of bias, as set out in Macdonald Estate v. Martin.

The court quashed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award denying her independent standing in a grievance arbitration concerning her alleged breach of a settlement agreement's non-disclosure provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the union had exclusive carriage of the matter and that any complaints regarding the union's representation should be directed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Court also held that the application for judicial review was premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying her standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision on standing was both reasonable and correct.

The court further held that without standing, the applicant could not raise the issue of bias.

The court noted prematurity might also be a ground for dismissal but reserved definitive findings for written reasons to follow.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave and judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision, the court determined costs.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $7,669.40.

The applicant argued for no costs, claiming the issue was novel and blaming the respondent for not agreeing to an adjournment.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, noting he chose the venue and his own costs outline exceeded the respondent's claim.

The court awarded the successful respondent costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant, a solicitor facing professional misconduct proceedings, sought leave under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to have his application for judicial review of a Law Society hearing panel's venue decision heard by the Superior Court of Justice rather than the Divisional Court.

The applicant sought to challenge the panel's refusal to change the hearing venue from Toronto to Ottawa.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish urgency or that the delay in proceeding to the Divisional Court would result in a failure of justice.

The court noted that the venue decision was interlocutory and the applicant's evidentiary record before the panel was deficient.

In ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings, the applicants sought advice and directions regarding the application of a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy issued by the insurer.

The dispute concerned whether a US$10 million retention applied to defence costs incurred by executives facing claims arising from alleged pre‑filing misconduct.

The applicants argued that the CCAA stay prevented the company from indemnifying the executives, thereby triggering the policy’s non‑indemnifiable loss provisions and eliminating the retention requirement.

The court held that the indemnity obligation was a pre‑filing obligation and that the stay prevented payment, rendering the loss non‑indemnifiable within the meaning of the policy.

As a result, the insurer was required to respond to the executives’ losses without reference to the retention.

The appellant, an Ontario lawyer, appealed a summary judgment recognizing and enforcing an Italian court judgment against him for professional misconduct in a failed joint venture.

The Court of Appeal applied the Van Breda test, finding that the tort was committed in Italy, which established a presumptive real and substantial connection.

The court also dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding a denial of natural justice and fraud on the foreign court, noting he had notice of the allegations but chose not to participate in the Italian proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant to enforce a debt obligation under a promissory note.

The defendant admitted to signing the note and acknowledging the debt but raised a defence of duress during cross-examination, which was not pleaded.

The court applied the full appreciation test under Rule 20 and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant's evidence did not support a finding of operative duress.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the acknowledged debt amount.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to enforce a settlement agreement dismissing the action without costs, the court determined the appropriate costs of the motion.

The court found the motion had been unnecessary because the plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence explaining or disputing the settlement offer made by counsel.

While the defendant sought higher costs, the court declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Instead, costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $2,700 all-inclusive.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and dismiss the plaintiff’s solicitor’s negligence action without costs.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s counsel had authority to offer a settlement dismissing the action without costs and that the defendant accepted the offer, but the plaintiff later refused to execute the consent dismissal.

The court applied the principles governing settlements reached by counsel and found that the plaintiff’s lawyer had authority to bind the client and that all essential terms of the settlement had been agreed upon.

The plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence disputing the instructions given to counsel or explaining why the settlement should not be enforced.

The court concluded that a binding settlement existed and ordered the action dismissed in accordance with the settlement.

The Association grieved the Employer's failure to roll the grievor into a permanent Business Analyst position under article 18.8.1(e) of the collective agreement.

The grievor had been in a temporary assignment for over 24 months.

The Employer argued there was no continuing need for the work due to a reorganization and funding issues.

The arbitrator found that as of the effective date of the new collective agreement language, there was a continuing need for the work for greater than an additional 12 months.

The Employer was ordered to assign the grievor to a permanent position and make her whole.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that section 54 of the Labour Relations Act applies to all collective agreements in Ontario.

The arbitrator had not yet decided the ultimate question of whether mandatory retirement prior to amendments to the Human Rights Code was unlawful.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, emphasizing that courts should not entertain applications prior to the completion of proceedings to avoid fragmented proceedings and unnecessary delay.

The arbitrator must rule on all issues before judicial review is appropriate.

The employer and the incumbent union filed a joint application for early termination of their collective agreement.

A rival union, the CAW, sought to intervene, objecting to the termination without an open period as it was conducting an organizing campaign.

The applicants argued the CAW's intervention was improperly served and that it had not proven it represented employees.

The Board allowed the intervention, finding the CAW had a real interest and had presented satisfactory evidence of representation.

To preserve employees' statutory rights to change their bargaining agent, the Board granted the early termination but imposed a three-month open period.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that the responding party service providers and the community care access centre constituted a single employer.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that even if the prerequisites of section 1(4) were met, the Board should not exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.

The Board agreed, finding that the loss of work by the unionized service provider was due to a government-mandated competitive bidding process, not a scheme to defeat bargaining rights.

The Board concluded there was no labour relations mischief to remedy and dismissed the application without a hearing on the merits.

The union applied for immediate relief in advance of a final offer vote, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices through intimidation and coercion regarding the consequences of a 'no' vote.

The Board declined to grant the requested declarations and cease-and-desist orders on an expedited basis, finding insufficient evidence had been presented in the single day of hearing to assess the totality of the bargaining context.

The Board directed the parties to bring to the employees' attention a statement affirming their right to vote freely and secretly, and scheduled the matter for continuation.