The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the decision of an arbitration panel under the Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1. The Court found that the panel’s decision in respect of a teacher’s final salary payout was reasonable.

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Labour law – Collective agreements – Pensions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Wild Rose School Division No. 66 v. Alberta Teachers’ Assn, [2007] A.J. No. 480, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April 30, 2007, W.E. Wilson ...

The University of British Columbia Faculty Association (the “Association”) brought a grievance on behalf of a faculty member after the President of the University of British Columbia (“UBC”) decided not to recommend the member for promotion. The President gave the small number of publications in peer-reviewed journals as the justification for the negative decision. The matter went to arbitration, where the President’s decision was found to be unreasonable. The arbitrator held that the President failed to consider the quality of the faculty member’s innovative professional work and how his work was regarded by his peers. Under the collective agreement (Article 13.07(c)) between Association and UBC, when such a decision is found to be unreasonable, the Board shall “reverse” the decision. The arbitrator interpreted the word “reverse” to mean “revoke” or “annul”, and declined to remit the matter back to the President for reconsideration. The arbitrator substituted a decision to recommend the faculty member for promotion for the President’s decision.

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Universities – Evaluation of professors – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Interpretation of legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Correctness – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression University of British Columbia v. University of British Columbia Faculty ...

An employee of the federal public service (“Comstock”) was unsuccessful in her application for a judicial review of two decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) in which the Commission had rejected her complaint regarding discrimination based on religion on the grounds that the complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission because she had failed to link a prohibited ground of discrimination to the requirement that she pay dues to her union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”)

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Religion – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Labour law – Collective agreements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression Comstock ...

A forestry company (“International”) was unsuccessful on an application for judicial review from a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) that a voluntary severance agreement (“Agreement”) ratified by the forestry workers union discriminated against non-active employees because active employees were offered severance pay under the Agreement, whereas non-active employees were not

24. April 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability –  Employment law – Severance pay – Labour law – Collective agreements – Judicial review – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness International Forest Products Ltd. v. Sandhu, [2007] B.C.J. No. 289, British Columbia Supreme Court, February ...

The reviewing judge did not err in dismissing the judicial review application as the adjudicator interpreted the discrimination provisions in the Applicant’s collective agreement in a way that was neither silly, bordering on the absurd, nor clearly irrational. The construction given to the discrimination provisions was rationally supported by the relevant legislation.

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Working conditions – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Adjudication – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Bainbridge v. New Brunswick (Board of Management), [2005] N.B.J. No. 114, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, March 10, 2005, W.S. Turnbull, M.E.L. Larlee and J.T. Robertson JJ.A. The Applicants ...

The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal was entitled to assume jurisdiction over a complaint brought by a minority group composed primarily of younger and less experienced teachers who alleged that their union’s modification of a collective agreement with the Province of Quebec discriminated against them. The Tribunal was entitled to hear the complaint despite a provision in the Quebec Labour Code requiring that every grievance be submitted to arbitration.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory arbitration – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaint – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Charter of Rights – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – ...

The Province of New Brunswick (the “Employer”) appealed the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench quashing the interim decision of the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (the “Board”) designating Teachers’ Assistants employed by the public schools as “essential employees”. In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the Board’s interim decision was not patently unreasonable as the legislation at issue was subject to an interpretation that would allow for two possible conclusions, and the Board had the right to choose the interpretation it preferred.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Essential employees – Schools – Teachers’ assistants – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and employment boards – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2745 v. New Brunswick (Board of ...

Two probationary officers in the Saskatoon Police Service were dismissed by the Chief of Police as being unsuitable for police service after they committed plagiarism while at Police College. Their Union sought to grieve the dismissals under the collective bargaining agreement. The Employer under the collective agreement, the Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners, took the position that it lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the grievances because they dealt with discipline issues rather than employer-employee issues. A board of arbitration found the grievances to be arbitrable, and the Chief of Police successfully appealed. The issue on appeal was whether the arbitration board had correctly found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the grievances.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Police – Penalties and suspensions – Plagiarism at police college – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear disciplinary grievances – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Saskatoon (City) Police Force v. Saskatoon (Police Commission), ...

An employee of Canpar Industries suffered an off-work injury and received long-term disability benefits paid by a plan provided by the employer in accordance with a collective agreement. The employer ultimately dismissed the employee, and the employee grieved his dismissal, saying that it was a violation of the collective agreement and essentially a matter of discrimination based on disability under the Human Rights Code. The employer objected to the jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator to hear that grievance, and the arbitrator ultimately dismissed the employer’s objection that he did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of accommodation with respect to disability and the Human Rights Code. Canpar Industries appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that where a collective agreement is silent regarding the application of human rights principles and the essence of the grievor’s case is that he has been discriminated against by reason of disability, an arbitrator acting under the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 244 may take jurisdiction over the grievance.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaints – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Canpar Industries v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, [2003] B.C.J. No. 2577, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November ...

Manitoba was unsuccessful in its appeal of a decision allowing a Statement of Claim filed by one of its employees (“Desrivieres”) to stand. The action commenced by Desrivieres sought entitlement to disability benefits under the government employee plan. The court held that the dispute resolution mechanism in this Plan did not oust the jurisdiction of the court.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Government – Employees – Benefit plans – Dispute resolution schemes – Jurisdiction – Final and binding – Definition – Adjudication – Jurisdiction of court – Labour law – Collective agreements Desrivieres v. Manitoba, [2002] M.J. No. 449, Manitoba Court of Appeal, November 15, 2002, Scott C.J.M., Monnin and Hamilton JJ.A. This case involved the issue of whether ...