Barry William Adams

This application concerned a dispute over a loan agreement and a supplementary security agreement involving pledged shares.

The applicants sought a declaration that the transfer of pledged shares to the respondents was null and void, or alternatively, relief under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) or equitable relief from forfeiture.

The court found that the applicants had defaulted on the loan agreement, and the respondents acted within their contractual rights under the security agreement to transfer the shares upon default, without needing to comply with PPSA notice requirements for disposal.

The court also denied equitable relief from forfeiture due to the applicants' conduct and lack of evidence of ability to pay.

The application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The appellants' statement of defence had been struck after they failed to attend a motion hearing, and they were subsequently noted in default.

The motion judge dismissed their motion to set aside the default, finding that the circumstances leading to the default had not been adequately explained and that setting aside the judgment would prejudice the respondent and impair the integrity of the justice system.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellants' pattern of delay and failure to attend court proceedings justified the refusal to set aside the default judgment.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding discipline against a grievor who refused to clean a workplace washroom.

The grievor, who had Hepatitis C, suffered a nosebleed and disposed of bloody tissues in the washroom.

When directed to clean and sanitize the area, he refused, claiming discrimination based on his disability.

The arbitrator found the employer's request reasonable and held that a single instance did not constitute a course of vexatious conduct under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the arbitrator's conclusion that the incident was a matter of industrial discipline rather than discrimination or harassment.

An employee filed an application for termination of bargaining rights, and the union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging employer interference.

The Board directed a representation vote and sealed the ballot box pending the resolution of the union's allegations.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to count the ballots and the union withdrew its unfair labour practice complaint.

The ballot count revealed that not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the termination application.

The applicant, who operated an insulation business with his wife, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union brought a non-suit motion, arguing the applicant was a principal of the company and that the application was not voluntary.

The Board granted the non-suit motion and dismissed the application, finding that even if the applicant were considered an employee, the decision to bring the application was made jointly with his wife, who managed the business.

Therefore, the application did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes free from management influence.

The complainant, a Filipino veterinarian, alleged that he was denied a promotion to a management position at the Humane Society because of his race and small physical stature.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the manager regularly used racial slurs and tolerated a prejudiced work environment, the decision not to promote the complainant was based on his lack of 'on the road' law enforcement experience compared to the successful candidate.

The complaint was dismissed, but the Board recommended workplace education on the Human Rights Code.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a complaint on behalf of Carolyn Maddox, a shoe salesperson who was told by her employer to lose 35 pounds or face termination.

Ms. Maddox left her employment and subsequently died in a car accident before the hearing.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed preliminary motions to stay the proceedings due to delay and the complainant's death, admitting her discovery transcript from a related civil action.

On the merits, the Board held that obesity is not a 'handicap' under the Human Rights Code unless it is an ongoing condition caused by illness that limits physical capabilities.

The Board also dismissed the claim of sex discrimination, finding insufficient evidence that the employer's weight requirement was directed at the complainant because she was a woman.

The complaint was dismissed.

In an application for a declaration terminating bargaining rights, the union sought production of various employer documents via a summons duces tecum.

The Board initially denied the broad request as a fishing expedition.

Subsequently, the union narrowed its request.

The Board directed the employer to produce time cards for specific dates to address allegations of management involvement in the petition's circulation, while other document requests were resolved by agreement.

The applicant union brought an application alleging a sale of business from Ameri-Cana Motel Limited to a numbered company, seeking to bind the numbered company to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights, which were originally obtained by certification in 1972.

The Board found that the union failed to take reasonable steps to monitor the employer's construction activities between 1973 and 1977, despite the employer operating from a fixed location where ongoing construction was visible.

Consequently, the Board concluded the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the advent of province-wide bargaining in 1978, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a working foreman, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights and circulated a petition signed by employees.

The Board first clarified a previous ruling, confirming that an agreement attempting to amend the bargaining unit in the provincial agreement is null and void under section 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

On the merits of the petition, the Board found that although the applicant was an employee in the bargaining unit and not excluded by section 1(3)(b), he was the sole representative of the employer on the job site for most of the time.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the employees would have perceived the applicant as a representative of the employer, rendering the petition involuntary.

The application for termination was dismissed.

A dissenting board member would have accepted the petition and directed a vote.

The union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain individuals working for the respondent exercised managerial functions and were thus excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the fixer-foremen did not exercise managerial responsibilities, as their direction of other employees was purely incidental to their primary concern of maintaining machines.

However, the Board concluded that the quality control supervisor did exercise managerial functions, noting her historical exclusion from the unit and her involvement in actions that could adversely impact fellow employees.

The complainants sought a cease and desist order and damages, alleging the respondents engaged in unlawful picketing and strikes to prevent the employer from operating with members of the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

The respondents moved to strike the claims, arguing the alleged unlawful conduct had ceased months prior.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no overriding labour-relations purpose to decline hearing the application or limiting the potential remedies before hearing the evidence.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the Carpenters' provincial agreement by failing to hire local union members or obtain a referral slip for carpentry work performed on a construction project.

The work was performed entirely by the president of the respondent company.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the president was a managerial person and not an 'employee' within the meaning of the collective agreement's transfer and hiring provisions.

As such, he was not prohibited from performing the work or required to obtain a referral slip.

The complainant union alleged that the employer dismissed a probationary employee because of her activities as a union steward, contrary to The Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the Board should defer to grievance arbitration under the collective agreement.

The Board refused to defer, noting the employee's probationary status might preclude arbitration and the dispute arose under a first collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board found the employer failed to prove the dismissal was untainted by anti-union animus, given the employee's excellent performance and the timing of her dismissal immediately following her union activities.

The Board ordered reinstatement with full compensation and directed the employer to post a notice.