Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered in displacement application, but ballot box sealed pending hearing on injunction.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded the vote.

The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the court order.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Robert Cruikshank Cleaning Contractors Limited, 2000 CanLII 6996

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered in displacement application, but ballot box sealed pending hearing on intervenor's objections.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The intervenor argued that a Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded the vote.

The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing on the effect of the court order.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. George Jeffrey Children’s Treatment Centre, 2000 CanLII 10371

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board directs applicant union to file submissions on timeliness of displacement certification application.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The intervenor union filed a copy of an appointment of a conciliation officer, which appeared to make the application untimely under section 67 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed for untimeliness.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Cara Health Services Division, Durham South Bruce Grey Health Centre, Durham, 2000 CanLII 8037

Laura Trachuk

Application to be dismissed as moot following resolution of underlying grievance.

The applicant filed an application regarding a grievance.

The responding party advised the Board that the grievance had been resolved and the warning notice removed from the applicant's file.

The Board indicated it would dismiss the application as moot unless the applicant provided good and sufficient reasons to proceed.

Sharon Wellington v. CAW National Office Local 200 (CAW) Ford Motor Co. of Canada, 2000 CanLII 12729

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote directed in displacement application, with ballot box sealed due to bargaining unit dispute.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

However, the responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken but ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the numerical dispute.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada (IWA-Canada) v. Canac Kitchens, Division of Kohler of Canada Ltd., 2000 CanLII 8457

Murray Klein

22 cases2000–2002

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 31, 2000

Application for additional severance pay dismissed; real estate agent failed to prove prior unpaid disability leave.

The applicant, a real estate agent, sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order for additional termination and severance pay.

Following the sale of the employer's real estate division, the applicant was terminated while on maternity leave.

The employer calculated her severance based on the short-term disability benefits she received in the 13 weeks prior to her notice.

The applicant argued the calculation should be based on the 13 weeks prior to December 1992, claiming she was on an unpaid disability leave throughout 1993.

The Adjudicator dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove she was on a medical leave prior to November 1993, as real estate agents frequently choose not to work for extended periods without being on formal leave.

Clair Dimuantes v. Canada Trust Realty Inc. and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 13501

Laura Trachuk

Underground vehicle collision must be reported under OHSA despite regulation specifying 'major damage'.

The union appealed an Inspector's decision that an underground collision between a haulage truck and a parked pick-up truck was not required to be reported under section 53 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act or section 21(5)(d) of the Mining Regulations.

The employer and the Ministry of Labour argued that the regulation limited the reporting requirement to accidents causing 'major damage', which this was not.

The Board found that the regulation was 'in addition to' the statutory requirement, not a limitation on it.

Given the remedial nature of the Act and the importance of informing the Joint Health and Safety Committee, the Board interpreted section 53 as requiring the reporting of the accident.

The appeal was allowed.

Sudbury Mine Mill and Smelter Workers’ Union, Local 598/CAW and Moe Durocher v. Falconbridge Ltd. and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 12478

Stephen Mason

20 cases1986–2005

Laura Trachuk

Appeal of health and safety inspector's decision dismissed; failure to keep promise not false information.

The union appealed an Inspector's decision that the lighting on underground personnel vehicles was adequate.

The union argued that the employer violated section 62 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to keep a promise to follow an ergonomist's recommendations regarding strobe light placement.

The Board found no violation of section 62, noting that a failure to keep a promise does not constitute providing false information to an Inspector.

The Board also held that it could not determine whether the current lighting configuration was inadequate without comparison testing.

The appeal was dismissed.

Sudbury Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers’ Union Local 598/CAW v. Craig Mines, 2000 CanLII 13346

Laura Trachuk

G. Pickell

OLRB0 cases1998–2001

A. Haward

OLRB0 cases1998–2001

Not Practising Law - Employed1 case2000–2000

Board permitted late response filing, affirmed jurisdiction over non-construction employee grievances under s. 133, and adjourned.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the hearing, the Board made several preliminary rulings.

It permitted the responding party to file its response and pay its hearing fee late due to confusion regarding a prior meeting.

The Board also dismissed the responding party's objection that the grievances could not be referred under section 133 because they related to non-construction employees, relying on established jurisprudence.

Finally, the Board granted an adjournment to allow the union to prepare a reply to objections raised in the newly filed response, and set a timetable for the exchange of particulars.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Metro Railing Ltd., 2000 CanLII 13403

Warren Smith

3 cases1998–2001

Seema Lamba

Robert Little

17 cases1988–2017

Doug Kariam

1 case2000–2000

David Jacobs

42 cases2000–2026

Dave Lumsden

1 case2000–2000

Bridget Lynett

6 cases2000–2000

Laura Trachuk

Board finds prima facie case that employer's policy limiting JHSC inspections of contractor sites violates OHSA.

The union appealed an Inspector's decision declining to make an order after the employer refused to allow the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) to inspect areas of the workplace where contractors were working under 'care and custody' agreements.

The employer and the Ministry of Labour raised a preliminary objection that the appeal did not make out a prima facie case and sought prospective remedies beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding an arguable case that the employer's policy of limiting JHSC inspections violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The matter was remitted to a Labour Relations Officer for settlement discussions.

United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005 v. Stelco Inc. (Hilton Works), 2000 CanLII 12471

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 29, 2000

Applications withdrawn pursuant to settlement between the parties.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees filed applications against the City of Toronto and Hotel Raffles Limited.

Pursuant to a settlement between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the applications withdrawn.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. City of Toronto and Hotel Raffles Limited, 2000 CanLII 3990

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 27, 2000

Duty of fair representation application dismissed without consultation as union properly assisted applicant with disability pension.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant had been off work with a disability since 1989 and was terminated in 1996.

The union intervened and negotiated an agreement to delay termination while the applicant's eligibility for a disability pension was assessed.

After medical examinations by both the employer's and the applicant's doctors concluded she was not totally disabled from any occupation, she was denied the pension and terminated.

The Board found no basis to conclude the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and dismissed the application without a consultation.

Mary Magro v. Local #1497 Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union, 2000 CanLII 13043

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 23, 2000

Board advised Minister that employers are a 'hospital' under HLDAA after employers withdrew objection.

The Minister of Labour referred a matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act to determine whether the employers were a 'hospital'.

The employers subsequently withdrew their objection to the application of the Act.

The Board therefore advised the Minister that the employers are a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Act.

Meadowcroft Group Limited v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2000 CanLII 12506

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 23, 2000

File terminated due to parties' failure to respond to previous Board decision.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the file because it had not received any correspondence from the parties pursuant to its previous decision of March 1, 2000.

Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2000 CanLII 8855

Heidi Lazar-Meyn

2 cases2000–2000

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 22, 2000

Order to pay rescinded as uncontradicted evidence showed the employee quit and was not fired.

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

The responding party employee did not appear at the hearing.

The employer testified that the employee obtained a second job and refused to work her scheduled shifts at the applicant's restaurant due to a conflict.

When the employer did not schedule her for other shifts, the employee stated she quit.

The Board accepted the uncontradicted evidence that the employee quit her employment and was therefore not entitled to termination pay.

The Order to Pay was rescinded.

Ivan’s Restaurants (North Bay) Ltd. v. Natalie Money and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 13082

Heidi Anne Lazar-Meyn

1 case2000–2000

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 17, 2000

Application dismissed due to the applicant's failure to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant employer failed to attend the scheduled hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an employment standards matter.

After waiting 30 minutes past the scheduled commencement time, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The Board directed that the monies held in trust be paid out to the responding employees.

Canadian Morbark Ltd. v. Richard Villeneuve, 2000 CanLII 12928

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 8, 2000

Board finds employee was terminated, not resigned, after employer demanded keys and called police.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's determination that he was not entitled to termination pay.

The employer claimed the applicant quit after an altercation, while the applicant claimed he was fired and asked to return his key.

The Board found that the employer's actions, including asking for the key and calling the police, constituted a termination.

The applicant was awarded six weeks' pay in lieu of notice plus vacation pay.

Richard Harrington v. Loveday Kitchens and Renovations Inc., 2000 CanLII 13022

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 6, 2000

Board directs applicant to file submissions responding to union's request to dismiss section 74 complaint.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party union violated section 74.

The union requested that the application be dismissed without a consultation, arguing it did not allege facts that could support a finding of a violation.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the union's request, identifying any disputed facts and specifying the alleged violations, before the Board decides whether to dismiss the application or schedule a consultation.

Mary Magro v. Local #1497 Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union, 2000 CanLII 11857

Laura Trachuk