Gail Misra is a vice-chair at the Ontario Labour Relations Board with 504 decisions on record from 1994 to 2025. Key areas include employment and labour law, administrative law, other tribunals.

What tribunal does Gail Misra sit on?

Gail Misra has sat on Ontario Labour Relations Board and Grievance Settlement Board.

What areas of law does Gail Misra decide?

Gail Misra's most common areas include Employment and Labour Law (504 decisions), Administrative Law (86 decisions), Other Tribunals (51 decisions). Gail Misra has handled 504 decisions across 5 areas.

How many decisions has Gail Misra made?

Gail Misra has 504 decisions on record from 1994 to 2025 across 2 tribunals.

Who frequently appears before Gail Misra?

Representatives who frequently appear before Gail Misra include Dan Sidsworth, Michelle LaButte, Gregg Gray.

GM

Employment and Labour Law

Gail Misra

Vice-ChairOntario Labour Relations BoardSince 1994

OLRB OGSB

504

cases · 32 yrs · OLRB, OGSB

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-Chair· 181Arbitrator· 138Vice-Chair· 114Vice-Chair· 61Vice Chair· 4Adjudicator/Referee· 4Adjudicator· 2

GM

Employment and Labour Law

Gail Misra

Vice-ChairOntario Labour Relations BoardSince 1994

OLRB OGSB

504

cases · 32 yrs · OLRB, OGSB

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-Chair· 181Arbitrator· 138Vice-Chair· 114Vice-Chair· 61Vice Chair· 4Adjudicator/Referee· 4Adjudicator· 2

JK

Grievance referral adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.

Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Castro Investors and Builders Ltd., 2000 CanLII 11236

JK

J. G. Knight

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

AH

A. Haward

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

OLRBApr 20, 2000

Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46 v. Unique Mechanical Inc., 2000 CanLII 9360

JK

J. G. Knight

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

AH

A. Haward

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

OLRBApr 20, 2000

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Remington Homes, 2000 CanLII 3268

JK

J. G. Knight

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

AH

A. Haward

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

OLRBApr 20, 2000

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Ron Robinson Limited, 2000 CanLII 3169

GP

G. Pickell

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

GM

Gail Misra

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1994–2025

AH

A. Haward

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

OLRBApr 18, 2000

Grievance referral adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46 v. Modern Mechanical Contracting Ltd., 2000 CanLII 8309

GP

G. Pickell

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

AH

A. Haward

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

OLRBApr 13, 2000

Applications terminated by the Board following correspondence from the applicant union.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527 v. Taggart Construction Limited, 2000 CanLII 10029

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

OLRBApr 11, 2000

Duty of fair representation application dismissed due to extreme and unexplained delay prejudicing the responding parties.

The applicants filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to file grievances on their behalf over a three-year period.

The union requested the application be dismissed due to extreme delay, as it was filed four years after the first allegation and more than a year after the last.

The Board found the applicants' explanation for the delay—that they were pursuing other avenues—unsatisfactory.

Concluding that the passage of time significantly prejudiced the union and the employer, the Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without further inquiry.

Bisson v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, 2000 CanLII 12824

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

OLRBApr 11, 2000

Applicants directed to indicate intentions within 10 days or application will be deemed abandoned.

Joycelyn Callender and Vivienne Radford v. Ontario Nurses Association and The Toronto Hospital, 2000 CanLII 11872

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

OLRBApr 4, 2000

Request for reconsideration of duty of fair representation decision dismissed for failing to meet threshold test.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision dismissing their duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

They sought monetary damages and a fine against the union for alleged misrepresentation and Human Rights Code violations.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicants merely reasserted arguments already considered and failed to meet the strict threshold test for reconsideration, which requires new evidence or compelling reasons such as an error of law.

Heather Kachurowski and Corrie Oosterhuis v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 391W, 2000 CanLII 13254

RC

Ron Carlton

3 cases1995–2000

RL

Robert Leone

7 cases1995–2001

RD

Richard Drmaj

10 cases1995–2003

NJ

N. L. Jesin

70 cases1987–2001

AM

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

JK

J. Knight

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

GM

G. McMenemy

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1993–2001

GM

Gail Misra

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1994–2025

OLRBMar 28, 2000

Employer breached collective agreement by not assigning labourers to scaffold jobs, but no damages awarded.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging that the responding employer violated the collective agreement by failing to assign labourers to tend carpenters on scaffolding jobs.

The Board found that the employer had failed to assign at least one labourer to all scaffolding jobs, contrary to a previous jurisdictional dispute decision, and thus breached the collective agreement.

However, the Board declined to award damages, finding that the employer had not acted arbitrarily and that the correct work assignment only became clear after the previous decision was issued.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1089 v. Chalmers Construction Ltd., 2000 CanLII 12012

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

OLRBMar 27, 2000

Board directed applicants to provide submissions explaining a multi-year delay in filing their complaint.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union alleging breaches of sections 74 and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested that the application be dismissed for want of a prima facie case and for untimeliness, as the allegations arose between one and four years prior to filing.

The Board directed the applicants to provide written submissions explaining the delay before considering the union's preliminary motions.

Susan Bisson et al. v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, 2000 CanLII 11790

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

OLRBMar 23, 2000

Consent order issued incorporating settlement terms for a second representation vote in a certification application.

The union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

The parties reached a full and final settlement, agreeing to a second representation vote, a $5,000 payment by the employer to the union for employee benefits, and various access and posting conditions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the Minutes of Settlement and directed the holding of the second representation vote.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Cornerstone Engineering & Restoration Inc., 2000 CanLII 12406

RF

Roy Filion

55 cases1987–2019

DW

David Wright

188 cases1989–2025

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

OLRBMar 20, 2000

Board dismisses sale of business application, finding CCAC's contracting out of nursing services was a subcontracting arrangement.

The union brought an application alleging a sale of a business and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party, a nursing services provider.

The community care access centre (CCAC) had contracted out 98% of its nursing services to the responding party.

The union argued this constituted a transfer of a part of the CCAC's business.

The Board found that the arrangement was a subcontracting of work, not a transfer of a business, as the responding party was a pre-existing business with its own infrastructure, management, and personnel, and no assets or economic organization were transferred from the CCAC.

The applications were dismissed.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Multi-Professional Support Services Inc., 2000 CanLII 13394

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

OLRBMar 2, 2000

Board orders disbursement of funds held in trust pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $66.94 returned to the employer, $66.95 paid to the employee, and the $100 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Yu Oi Lin operating as House of China v. Alicia Patsas and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 7509

GP

G. Pickell

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1998–2001

GM

G. McMenemy

OLRBUnanimous0 cases1993–2001

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

OLRBFeb 23, 2000

Application withdrawn by leave of the Board.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46 v. W. A. Stephenson Mechanical Contractors Limited, 2000 CanLII 7867

GM

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

OLRBFeb 21, 2000

Request for reconsideration of decision denying extension of time to appeal Orders to Pay denied.

The applicant employer requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that denied an extension of time to file applications for review of Employment Standards Orders to Pay.

The Board applied its established threshold test for reconsideration, noting that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue its case based on correspondence already considered in the original decision.

The Board clarified its role, explaining that it does not issue Orders to Pay but only reviews them de novo if an application is filed in time.

The request for reconsideration was denied.