Andrea Bowker

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that required it to enter into a collective agreement with the respondent employer following a final offer vote under s. 42(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had refused to sign the agreement, arguing it would break a pattern agreement applicable to the non-ICI construction sector.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions unreasonable, holding that the Act does not require a union to object to a final offer vote at the outset, and that the Board unreasonably excluded the existence of a pattern agreement as a justification for refusing to sign.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to a different panel of the Board.

The employer and seven employees sought judicial review of two decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board: a decision certifying the union as the bargaining agent for a unit of carpenters, and a decision dismissing requests for reconsideration.

The applicants argued the decisions were procedurally unfair because they were made without a hearing, and unreasonable because the Board failed to properly consider allegations that the union organizer used misrepresentation to obtain signed membership cards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's specialized procedures permitted it to decide the matter without a hearing, and that its decisions were rational, logical, and tenable based on the evidence and submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation application against her union.

The OLRB had dismissed the application partly due to delay and partly for failing to establish a prima facie case that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith regarding her termination grievance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the OLRB's conclusions regarding delay or the lack of a prima facie case.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) declaration.

The OLRB had declared Enercare Home & Commercial Services Limited Partnership, Ganeh Energy Services Ltd., and Beaver Energy Services Ltd. to be related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but not Perras Mechanical Services Ltd. The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decision unreasonable for failing to consider bargaining history and collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, and restored the OLRB's original decision.

This appeal concerns the Divisional Court's quashing of three Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions, which had declared Tomasz Turkiewicz Custom Masonry Homes (TTCMH) and Brickpol Masonry Corporation (Mr. Turkiewicz's former business) a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, bound TTCMH to a collective agreement, and awarded damages to the Unions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court erred in its application of the reasonableness standard of review, as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov.

The Court of Appeal held that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable, as the Board properly considered the erosion of bargaining rights as a valid labour relations purpose for the related employer declaration, adequately addressed the hiatus between businesses, and made a reasonable damages award.

The appeal was allowed, and the OLRB decisions were restored.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints of reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The applicant alleged his employment was terminated because he took personal emergency leave and made a harassment complaint.

The Board found the termination was solely due to ongoing performance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test for reprisal, reasonably assessed the evidence, and did not deny the applicant procedural fairness in its evidentiary rulings.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that required it to pay an employee his hourly wage for time spent commuting between an out-of-town hotel and a job site in a rental car provided by the employer.

The arbitrator found that the rental car constituted the 'Employer's equipment' under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's practical, common-sense interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding it engaged in an unlawful reprisal by terminating an employee who raised health and safety concerns.

The employer argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board limited witness testimony during a consultation and proceeded with a remedy hearing in the employer's absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedures were fair and in accordance with its rules, and its conclusion that the termination was an unlawful reprisal was reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether certain bargaining proposals were central or local issues under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

Following the Board's decision, the parties reached an agreement that the disputed issues were central, resolving the underlying conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matter because the Board's procedural decision did not set a dangerous precedent requiring appellate intervention.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the layoff of a foreman.

The Board had determined that the employer violated the collective agreement by laying off the foreman without regard to seniority rights.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court found that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions: a default decision finding it violated a collective agreement and awarding damages, and a decision denying reconsideration.

The employer had failed to participate in a related jurisdictional dispute or file a timely response to the grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions were neither procedurally unfair nor unreasonable, as the employer had ample opportunity to participate but chose not to do so until the eve of the damages hearing.

The applicant Receiver sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring it a successor employer under the Labour Relations Act.

The Receiver had been operating an insolvent debtor's retirement home business for several years.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable that the Receiver met the test for a successor employer.

The Court also agreed that section 14.06(1.2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not immunize a receiver from prospective collective bargaining obligations, but only from pre-appointment liabilities.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to certify a union for a bargaining unit of employees at a specific hotel location.

The employer argued the bargaining unit was inappropriate due to employee interchange across multiple locations and that the Board denied procedural fairness by excluding certain casual employees without an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's determination of the bargaining unit and employee status was reasonable and fell within its core expertise.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness, as the Board provided ample opportunity for written submissions.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision confirming a work assignment to a competing union.

The Board had found that the factor of economy and efficiency favoured the competing union for scaffolding tending work.

The Divisional Court dismissed preliminary objections that the application was moot or premature.

On the merits, the Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable, as it was supported by evidence in the record, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation by deciding not to pursue his grievances to arbitration following his layoff.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Board's use of a consultation process rather than a formal oral hearing did not violate the principles of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming a compliance order that required the applicant to pay overtime to employees at its centralized sweet corn processing facility.

The Board had found that the facility was not a 'farm' and the work was not 'directly related to primary production' under the farm worker exemption in Regulation 285/01.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was unreasonable because it disregarded uncontradicted expert and operational evidence, adopted an arbitrary interpretation that created absurd results, and failed to properly balance the protective purpose of the exemption.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the court declared that the farm worker exemption applied to the employees.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding a voluntary severance program.

The Divisional Court found that the Board reasonably applied the test for the duty of fair representation, did not misapprehend the evidence, provided adequate reasons, and did not breach the principles of natural justice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought a stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for a group of its employees, pending judicial review.

The employer argued it would suffer irreparable harm by being forced to choose between pursuing judicial review or complying with its obligation to bargain in good faith, and by expending unrecoverable resources on collective bargaining.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the employer could bargain in good faith while reserving its rights pending judicial review, and that mutual, unremarkable process costs do not constitute irreparable harm.

The applicant employer brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court for an order in the nature of certiorari to quash an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondent union consented to the order, but the Board opposed it.

The single judge determined she lacked jurisdiction to grant a final order quashing the decision, as such relief must be granted by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also noted that quashing an administrative decision requires a review of the merits, even on consent.

The motion was adjourned to a full panel.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to prospectively extend the one-year limitation period, amend her application to add new reprisal allegations, and obtain an interim remedy to establish ground rules for the respondents' conduct.

The Tribunal held that it cannot prospectively extend the limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, as good faith delay must be assessed on actual facts.

The request to amend was deferred because the main application was already deferred pending another matter.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to meet the significant onus under Rule 23.2 to show that the balance of harm favoured the remedy or that it was necessary to ensure a complete remedy at the end of the hearing.