A. Bowker

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring it a successor employer bound by a collective agreement after taking over a hospital shuttle bus contract.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably expanded the definition of 'building service provider' and 'servicing the premises' under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and consistent with its prior jurisprudence.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which found that the employer's labour relations were provincially regulated and allowed the union's certification applications to proceed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity.

The Court held that absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present here, administrative proceedings should not be fragmented by reviewing preliminary constitutional or jurisdictional issues before a final decision on the merits.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the constitutionality of Bill 66, which amended the Labour Relations Act to deem municipalities as non-construction employers.

The union argued this violated section 2(d) of the Charter by nullifying their collective agreements and subcontracting protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly applied binding precedent and that the amendments did not substantially interfere with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision that certified a union and dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration.

The applicant had filed its response to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit via courier, but the OLRB rejected it for failing to comply with a COVID-19 'Notice to Community' requiring electronic filing, despite the OLRB's own forms and rules permitting courier delivery.

The Divisional Court found a breach of procedural fairness, quashed the OLRB's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Board to be decided on its merits.

The applicant, a former professional hockey goaltender, filed an application alleging the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding unpaid salary.

The respondent and intervenor raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant's employment was entirely in the United States and lacked a substantial connection to Ontario.

The fact that the union's head office is in Ontario did not confer jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant City applied for declarations that the responding trade unions no longer represent its construction industry employees, asserting it is a non-construction employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding unions raised a constitutional challenge to sections 127.1 and 127.2 of the Act under the Charter.

The applicant sought to have the constitutional challenge determined on a preliminary basis, either by a motion to strike or following evidence on the constitutional issue alone.

The Board declined to hear the constitutional challenge as a preliminary matter, finding it premature as the Charter question would be moot if the applicant failed to establish it was a non-construction employer.

The Board directed that the constitutional issue be heard at the end of the proceedings.

The applicant union brought multiple applications and grievance referrals against the responding corporate employer and its principal for failing to abide by collective agreements, including failing to make remittances and hiring non-union members.

The Board found that the corporate employer and its principal, acting on behalf of the employer, violated sections 70 and 72 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the responding parties to jointly and severally pay damages of $40,374.72, deposit cash bonds with trust funds, and produce relevant documents.

The Carpenters union filed a work assignment complaint regarding the tending of carpenters at a construction project at Algoma Steel.

The general contractor had assigned the formwork to the Carpenters, with the Labourers tending.

The Carpenters argued they should tend themselves.

The Board considered employer practice, area practice, trade agreements, collective agreement obligations, economy and efficiency, and skill and safety.

Finding that tending is at the core of the Labourers' work jurisdiction and that safety and efficiency factors also favoured the Labourers, the Board upheld the assignment of the work to the Labourers.