Anthony Francis Dale

The applicant union sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board approving a settlement between a rival union and the employers.

The settlement declared two drugstore chains to be related employers and granted the rival union sole bargaining rights for all employees of the non-unionized chain in Ontario, including the Ottawa region where the applicant traditionally represented employees of the unionized chain.

The applicant was not given notice of the settlement or the underlying applications.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by unreasonably requiring the applicant to already represent employees of the non-unionized chain to be entitled to notice.

The Court held that the applicant was significantly affected by the decision and had a right to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically challenging the employer's Modified Work Program which subjected him to temporary layoffs due to his permanent medical restrictions.

The respondents requested particulars and sought to dismiss allegations relating to periods before October 2008 due to delay.

The Tribunal dismissed allegations prior to March 2007 for delay, finding no series of incidents connecting them to later events and no good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant was ordered to provide a detailed chronology and particulars for the period from March 2007 to October 2009.

The applicant's request for further disclosure of documents was dismissed.

The appellant union appealed a Divisional Court decision that affirmed an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of s. 56(2) of the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal found that while the appellant's interpretation was reasonable, the arbitrator's interpretation was also within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the interpretation of 'temporary lay-off' under s. 56(2) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The union argued that the employer's lay-off of over 200 employees became a termination after 13 weeks, triggering mass termination notice requirements.

The arbitrator, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in London Machinery, held that s. 56(2)(c) applied as a stand-alone provision because the collective agreement provided recall rights, meaning the lay-off could extend up to 35 weeks without becoming a termination.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation was defensible and supported by binding precedent.

The employer and union challenged a Review Office Order regarding their negotiated pay equity plan.

The central issue was whether tips should be included in the calculation of 'compensation' for determining the 'job rate' of Casino Cashiers under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that tips can be included in compensation as they are ascertainable.

However, the Tribunal found that the process used by the employer and union to estimate the tip rate was unreasonable because they failed to use available, accurate tracking methods.

The Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's Order and directed prospective tip tracking for the Casino Cashiers and their male comparator group to accurately determine the tip rate.

The union appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitrator's award.

The arbitrator had dismissed a grievance claiming a temporarily laid-off unionized employee was entitled to termination pay and an election regarding recall rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Court of Appeal held that the proper standard of review was patent unreasonableness, not reasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation of s. 56(2)(c) of the Act—that a standard seniority recall clause extended the temporary lay-off and deferred termination pay entitlement—was patently unreasonable because it undermined the purpose of the statutory election process.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitrator's award was quashed.

The applicants, Boeing and Bombardier, sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade to disclose three agreements relating to the purchase and sale of the de Havilland business.

The applicants argued the records were exempt from disclosure under the third-party information exemption in s. 17 of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Commissioner reasonably concluded that the complex, multi-party agreements were the product of negotiation and did not contain information 'supplied' to the Ministry by the applicants.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a policy grievance regarding vacation pay.

The union argued that employees with 1 to 3 years of seniority who worked overtime received less than the 4% minimum vacation pay required by the Employment Standards Act.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement's vacation package, which included guaranteed paid days regardless of actual earnings and increased entitlements with seniority, provided a greater benefit overall under s. 5(2) of the Act.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, noting the value of the guaranteed paid days, and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award concerning the interpretation of a collective agreement and an employee's status under the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The court found the arbitrator's analysis of the collective agreement and the employee's status to be reasonable and dismissed the application with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the validity of a collective agreement under section 53.

The applicant argued the Board was required to declare the agreement invalid for all purposes, not just for the two certification applications before it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had jurisdiction to restrict its remedy to the applications before it and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent union.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union following a transfer of jurisdiction.

The transfer was part of a broader settlement agreement between the two unions to resolve ongoing raiding disputes, conditional upon the applicant demonstrating 40% membership support and winning a Board-supervised representation vote.

The responding employer objected, arguing the application was premature because the transfer of jurisdiction was conditional at the time of filing.

The Board rejected the employer's argument, finding that section 68 allows the Board to conduct representation votes to confirm a successorship claim.

Since the applicant satisfied the conditions and won the representation vote, the Board granted the application and declared the applicant the successor trade union.

The applicant filed an application alleging an unlawful strike under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act and section 11 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties entered into minutes of settlement.

The Board directed that the application be adjourned sine die for a period of one year, after which it would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed.

The CAW filed displacement applications for bargaining units at three hospitals currently represented by SEIU.

SEIU objected that the applications were untimely under section 7(4) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the collective agreements were for a term of less than three years because their effective date was determined by the date of an interest arbitration award under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the parties had agreed to a six-year term, which prevailed over the default terms in HLDAA.

Therefore, section 7(5) of the Act applied, and the applications were timely.

The CAW filed displacement applications for full-time and part-time bargaining units at St. Joseph's General Hospital.

The incumbent union, SEIU Local 204, objected that the applications were untimely under section 7(4) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the collective agreements commenced on the date of an interest arbitration award and were for a term of less than three years.

The CAW argued the agreements were for a six-year term by agreement of the parties, making the applications timely under section 7(5).

The Board found that the parties had agreed to a six-year term expiring in October 2001, which prevailed over the statutory default terms in the Hospital Labour Dispute Arbitration Act.

The timeliness objection was dismissed and the ballots were ordered to be counted.

The applicant union applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to determine the appropriate number and description of bargaining units following a hospital restructuring.

The Board denied an adjournment request by the SEIU and denied standing to OPSEU.

The Board determined that there should be one service unit, inclusive of registered practical nurses and stationary engineers, extending to all three of the employer's sites.

The Board also determined that the technical unit should extend to all three sites rather than being limited to one.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification for full-time and part-time bargaining units of nurses.

A dispute arose regarding the composition of the full-time bargaining unit, which appeared to contain only one person.

The intervenor union argued that the application for the full-time unit must be dismissed because section 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires a bargaining unit to consist of more than one employee.

The Board noted that while its practice in displacement applications is to find the incumbent's bargaining unit appropriate, section 9(1) may preclude this if the unit has only one person.

The Board deferred its decision and invited the parties to make further submissions on the interpretation of section 9(1) and the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party and intervenor argued the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had been appointed on the same day the application was filed, and the intervenor was not served until the following day.

The Board found that while it could extend the time for delivery under its Rules, the application was not properly 'made' until it was both filed and delivered.

Because delivery to the intervenor occurred on March 17, 2000, after the appointment of a conciliation officer on March 16, 2000, the application was untimely under section 67(2) of the Act.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed applications for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The incumbent union and an interested party argued the applications should be dismissed due to late delivery to the employer and inaccuracies in the Certificates of Delivery.

The Board found the applicant acted in good faith and intended to deliver the applications on time, but was thwarted by a clerical error with a facsimile number.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rule 44 to relieve against the strict application of the Rules, accepted the application date as March 14, 2000, and directed the opening of the ballot boxes.