Andrew Hiram Robinson

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding the respondent's compliance with a due diligence undertaking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the motion judge erred by failing to apply an objective test, applying an objective standard would lead to the same conclusion: the respondent took sufficient steps to comply with its contractual obligation and exercise its discretion reasonably.

The Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees filed an application and complaint asserting that its existing agreements with Ontario Hydro constituted a collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act.

Ontario Hydro and an intervener argued that the agreements were not a collective agreement and that the Society was estopped from asserting otherwise.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the doctrine of estoppel could apply to prevent a party from asserting that an agreement is a collective agreement under the Act.

Finding that the Society had historically represented to Hydro that their agreements were outside the Act, and that Hydro had relied on these representations in entering into the 1983 Master Agreement, the Board concluded that the Society was estopped from now claiming the agreements constituted a collective agreement.

The application and complaint were dismissed.

The applicant, an association representing professional and administrative employees of Ontario Hydro, applied for certification as a trade union.

The respondent and objecting employees argued that the applicant was not a 'trade union' under the Labour Relations Act because its membership included persons exercising managerial functions, and that its certification was barred by section 13 due to employer support.

The Board held that the statutory definition of 'trade union' does not mean an organization of employees only, and the presence of managerial members does not deprive an organization of trade union status.

The Board further held that the involvement of allegedly managerial persons in the applicant's affairs and the applicant's use of employer facilities under a long-standing voluntary relationship did not constitute employer support within the meaning of section 13.

The preliminary status questions were resolved in the applicant's favour, and the matter was directed to be relisted for hearing on the remaining issues.