Toronto, ON – The Ontario Divisional Court has dismissed the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) judicial review application challenging an arbitration decision over the calculation of severance pay for a former employee. In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canadian Media Guild et al., 2025 ONSC 4495, the court found that the arbitrator’s ruling, which favoured the Canadian Media Guild (CMG), was both reasonable and procedurally fair.
The case stems from a grievance involving Jennifer Van Evra, a CBC employee who began working for the broadcaster in 2000 and became permanent in 2005. In 2020, CBC sought to change her work hours to an overnight shift. Van Evra cited medical restrictions preventing her from working those hours. After declining to undergo an independent medical examination, she was placed on unpaid leave. The parties later agreed she would accept a layoff and a separation allowance.
The dispute centred on how to calculate that allowance under the collective agreement. CBC argued that Van Evra’s continuous service began in 2005, when she became permanent, and that certain unpaid leaves should reduce her credited service time. The broadcaster also contended that her allowance should be pro-rated to reflect periods of part-time work, citing what it claimed was a longstanding internal practice.
CMG disagreed, maintaining that service should be counted from 2002, when Van Evra started as a temporary employee. The union argued that most of her unpaid leaves were the result of CBC’s failure to accommodate her disability or to provide sick leave, and that the collective agreement contained no provision for pro-rating the allowance based on part-time work.
The matter proceeded to arbitration before Vincent Ready. The parties agreed to rely on written submissions rather than live testimony. In January 2025, Arbitrator Ready sided with CMG. He set the service start date at 2002, deducted only one year-long leave agreed upon by both parties, and rejected the CBC’s pro-rating argument due to a lack of evidence of CMG’s awareness or acceptance of such a practice. The award totalled $96,782.
CBC sought judicial review, alleging that the arbitrator’s findings on the service start date, treatment of unpaid leaves, and refusal to pro-rate the allowance were unreasonable. The broadcaster also claimed procedural unfairness, arguing it had been denied the opportunity to call live evidence about its past practices.
Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Nakatsuru rejected each of CBC’s arguments. On the service start date, the court found the arbitrator’s reasons adequate in context, noting the binary nature of the issue and the absence of factual disputes. Regarding the unpaid leaves, the court accepted that the arbitrator had some evidence to support his findings and, in any case, reasonably concluded that only requested and granted leaves should be excluded under the collective agreement.
On the pro-rating issue, the court agreed with the arbitrator’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of a long-standing practice known to and accepted by CMG. The single email cited by CBC was countered by union evidence showing it had previously objected to such an approach. The court held that deference was owed to the arbitrator’s factual findings, particularly in a labour relations context.
Addressing procedural fairness, the court noted that both parties had agreed to proceed on written submissions. While CBC had included a general reservation of rights to call live evidence, it had not provided the arbitrator with details about what that evidence would be. The court found that the arbitrator had nonetheless accommodated a request for additional submissions and that CBC had not been deprived of a fair opportunity to present its case.
The Divisional Court also considered an affidavit from a CBC human resources advisor filed on judicial review, which outlined the testimony she would have given at arbitration. The court admitted the affidavit for the limited purpose of showing what CBC intended to present but found it would not have altered the outcome, as it did not address CMG’s knowledge or acceptance of any past practice.
Concluding that the arbitrator’s decision fell within a reasonable range of outcomes and that the process was fair, the court dismissed the application. By agreement of the parties, CBC was ordered to pay CMG $11,000 in legal costs.
