Case information

Labour relations – Arbitration – Grievances – Applicant’s employment terminated – Grievance referred to arbitration – Arbitration award – Whether respondent complied with arbitration award – Whether a provincial law that restricts a taxpayer to predicate a way to minimize income tax in a particular manner which involves future taxation years violates a taxpayer’s rights – Can a provincial agreement which does not require signatures of all parties be used to determine sections of the federal Income Tax Act – Whether there are no reported cases which have interpreted or applied s. 14(19) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant worked at George Brown College (College) until her employment was terminated for cause. The applicant was a member of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (the “Union”). The applicant filed a grievance which was referred to arbitration before the Arbitration Board (the “Board”). On November 2, 2010, the Board issued its award and ordered the College to compensate the applicant for her loss of employment. A supplementary award was issued on September 26, 2011, wherein the Board ordered the College to pay the applicant damages in the sum of $127,059, as compensation for her loss of employment. In the supplementary award, the Board ordered the College to comply with any lawful direction by the applicant, received within 30 days of the date of the award to pay the compensation in a particular manner to minimize the impact of income tax. On October 6, 2011, counsel for the Union emailed the College’s counsel with the applicant’s directions. The direction requested that the College pay the applicant in three installments, over a three-year period, 2011, 2012 and 2013. On December 8, 2011, the applicant commenced an application at the Superior Court, seeking to enforce the Board’s supplementary award terms. Next counsel for the College received a letter from the applicant’s newly retained lawyer. The letter returned the cheques and asked that the cheques be re-issued payable to the applicant’s Registered Pension Plan. The cheques were reissued, but payable to the applicant, as per the initial directions. Ultimately, the applicant cashed the cheques. In October 2012, the applicant issued an amended application, claiming that the College did not follow her instructions. Chiappetta J. found that the College complied with the arbitration award. Shore J. dismissed the motion to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.