An Ontario labour arbitrator has upheld a grievance challenging the reduction of life insurance coverage for employees who die after having reached age 65, finding that the relevant provision of the insurance policy had not been incorporated into the collective agreement. In the same decision, the arbitrator dismissed two policy grievances challenging the termination of…
Tag: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Arbitrator Upholds TDSB Mandatory Vaccination Policy
On March 22, 2022, Arbitrator William Kaplan issued The Toronto District School Board and CUPE, Local 4400 (Re COVID-19 Vaccine Procedure), an award in which he upheld the mandatory vaccination policy (Policy) of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). He found that the Policy did not infringe section 7 (life, liberty and security of person)…
Beyond COVID-19: 2021 Year in Review – Cases and Legislation of Note
Employers and human resource professionals will undoubtedly remember 2021 as another year shaped by the pandemic. But … there were also legal developments in 2021 that were not related to COVID-19. In this FTR Now, we look at some of the year’s notable “non-pandemic” cases and legislative developments of interest.
Manitoba Court of Appeal Upholds Public Sector Wage Restraint Legislation
In Manitoba Federation of Labour et al v The Government of Manitoba, the Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld the province’s public sector wage restraint legislation that had previously been ruled unconstitutional. The Court based its decision on the fact that the impugned legislation was broad-based and time-limited, and that it preserved a process of consultation…
Appellate Court Confirms that Employers are not Obligated to Negotiate with Unions in Maintaining Pay Equity
On September 21, 2021, the Ontario Divisional Court issued Ontario Nurses’ Association v. 10 Community Care Access Centres, an important decision on pay equity maintenance. The Court confirmed that a union, in the context of seeking a joint process with an employer to maintain pay equity, does not have a right to negotiate the maintenance…
Court Upholds CMOH Directives #1 and #5 as Reasonable and Consistent with the Precautionary Principle
In Ontario Nurses’ Assn. v. Chief Medical Officer of Health (Ontario), the Ontario Divisional Court upheld Directives #1 and #5 (Directives) of the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) as reasonable and consistent with the precautionary principle. The Court dismissed an application brought by the Ontario Nurses’ Association (ONA), and others, to amend or quash…
Access To and Use of PPE Governed by CMOH Directive 5: An Inherent Balancing Act Confirmed by Arbitrator Stout
In an award dated May 4, 2020, Arbitrator Stout addressed, among other things, critical aspects of the CMOH’s Directives respecting access to and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). In this HR HealthCheck, we provide an overview of this significant award (Award), a decision of notable impact to health care providers and health care workers alike, in both the Hospital and Long-Term Care sectors.
Alberta Appellate Court Renders Significant Decision on University Autonomy and Expressive Rights
Universities value their autonomy, and though subject to court supervision, have long been accorded significant leeway in managing their academic and non-academic affairs. The Alberta Court of Appeal recently issued a decision that is controversial in its recognition that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms governs an Alberta university’s control over the use of its space. This decision conflicts with jurisprudence in other jurisdictions and may be challenged, but it does highlight the pressures on university autonomy today, particularly as they pertain to matters involving free expression.
Recent Developments of Note
On March 15, 2019, the Ministry of Education outlined several new initiatives in a plan entitled “Education that Works for You” which will have a significant impact on the school board sector. In this School Board Update, we summarize the key initiatives.
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Decision on Post Age 65 Benefits Raises Important Issues
The recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) in Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board raises important issues about the provision of benefits to employees aged 65 and older. In Talos, the Tribunal found that section 25 (2.1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code), which effectively permits employers to cease providing employees with benefits at age 65, is unconstitutional. More specifically, the Tribunal held that this age-based “carve out” from Code protection violates the equality guarantee under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit.