Carl Peterson

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's refusal to order the respondent employer to restrict the operation of an overhead crane to workers holding a specific mobile crane certificate.

By the time of the hearing, the construction project had concluded, rendering the underlying dispute moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no special circumstances.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Board's interpretation of the occupational health and safety regulations was reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, an employee with Asperger's syndrome, alleged discrimination by his employer and union regarding requests for medical information and the handling of his return to work.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding medical information requests, finding them reasonable.

However, the Tribunal found the employer constructively discriminated against the applicant during a return-to-work meeting and upon his return by failing to accommodate his specific communication and sensory needs, including issuing a confusing backdated letter of expectation and denying him a break when he became distressed.

The union was found not liable.

The employer was ordered to pay $10,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination following the termination of her employment.

The respondents argued the application was out of time as the Tribunal's record showed it was filed more than one year after the termination.

The applicant provided evidence that she had originally submitted the application within the one-year period but the Tribunal failed to process it.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in accordance with section 34 of the Human Rights Code and directed the processing to continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry regarding his lay-off and a failure to accommodate.

The applicant had also filed a union grievance raising substantially the same facts and issues regarding disability accommodation and lay-off.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations of systemic discrimination and events predating February 2011.

The respondents argued these amendments were prejudicial and that allegations predating October 2011 were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request to add systemic discrimination and earlier events due to prejudice.

It also dismissed allegations predating June 30, 2011 as having no reasonable prospect of success, since the respondents were unaware of the applicant's disability before then.

The Tribunal found that the July 2011 return to work meeting was not part of a series of incidents and was therefore untimely, with no good faith explanation for the delay.

However, allegations regarding repeated requests for medical documentation were allowed to proceed as a potential series of incidents.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents, videos, and unredacted notes from the employer and the union.

At the hearing, the parties resolved the production issues, with the applicant withdrawing some requests and the respondents agreeing to produce the remaining requested materials.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to produce the agreed-upon documents and set a schedule for written submissions on an outstanding timeliness issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by a taxi driver and company more than eight months after the one-year statutory time limit.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was attempting to obtain the driver's name through criminal disclosure and freedom of information requests.

The Tribunal found that while the initial delay might have been in good faith, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for waiting an additional three months and three weeks to file the application after his freedom of information request was denied.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed five separate human rights applications against five taxi companies alleging discriminatory pricing for accessible cabs.

The applicant sought to consolidate the applications.

Four of the respondents consented to consolidation.

The fifth respondent, Crown Taxi Inc., opposed consolidation on the basis that it did not operate accessible cabs and sought to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal consolidated the four consenting applications but ordered the application against Crown Taxi Inc. to proceed separately, as its preliminary jurisdictional issue did not share common issues of fact and law with the others.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding issues that were previously the subject of a union grievance.

The grievance had been settled between the applicant's union and the respondent employer, and the applicant received and accepted the settlement funds.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process or under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of duress were unsubstantiated and that allowing the application to proceed in the face of the settlement would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of age, disability, ethnic origin, and place of origin, approximately four years after his employment was terminated.

The respondent requested summary dismissal due to the delay, a signed release, and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the four-year delay, noting he had filed other proceedings in the interim and his medical evidence did not establish an inability to file.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote for a collective agreement settled by interest arbitration.

The applicant later sought to amend the pleadings to argue the agreement to arbitrate was invalid.

The Board declined to inquire further into the application, finding the amended pleadings were filed with undue delay and expanded the scope of the original complaint.

The Board also noted the union had since been decertified, rendering the requested relief moot and serving no labour relations purpose.

The union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a settlement agreement by not reinstating two grievors.

The Board found that the parties had amended the settlement during a telephone conversation, waiving the employer's obligation to reinstate the grievors on the specified date.

The employer had offered to reinstate them, but the union indicated it was not necessary.

The union subsequently failed to refer the grievors to the project when requested by the employer.

The Board concluded there was no violation of the settlement and dismissed the application.

The applicants sought to add and correct the names of the responding parties in multiple applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The responding parties consented to the additions and name changes.

The Board ordered the responding parties to post a notice to millwright employees affected by the application and adjourned the matters to be scheduled by the Registrar.

The applicant applied to decertify the responding party union.

The union requested that the ballot box be sealed pending the resolution of a reconsideration request, a timeliness issue related to another proceeding, and allegations of employer conduct and voting irregularities.

The Board had previously declined to seal the ballot box in two prior decisions.

The Board found that the union's allegations of prejudice were insufficient to reverse the earlier decisions and ordered the ballots to be counted.

The applicant union brought an application under subsection 1(4) and section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that a corporate amalgamation of several construction companies into a single entity, BFC Construction Group Inc., constituted a sale of a business.

The union argued that the entire amalgamated corporation was bound by the pre-existing collective agreements.

The responding parties conceded that a sale of business or related employer declaration might be appropriate but argued that the collective agreements should only bind the specific divisions that formerly constituted the predecessor companies.

The Board held that a corporate amalgamation is a sale of a business under section 69.

The Board further held that a division of a corporation can be a 'person' to whom a business is sold under section 69(2).

The Board directed further hearings to determine factually whether the business was transferred to the entire corporation or only to specific divisions.

The Board received a letter from counsel to the OPC, the BACU, and the Ontario Locals, which appeared to be a request for reconsideration.

The Board noted that its decision speaks for itself until amended or reconsidered.

As the letter was not framed as a formal request for reconsideration, the Board concluded there was nothing for it to do until a proper request is before it.

The Ontario Locals of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (IUBAC) sought greater autonomy, leading the IUBAC to revoke their charters.

The Ontario Locals formed a new union, the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (BACU), and sought to be certified as the employee bargaining agency under section 154 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the IUBAC violated sections 147 and 149 by revoking the charters without just cause, declaring the revocations null and void.

However, the Board dismissed the BACU's applications for certification, finding that it did not meet the statutory definition of an employee bargaining agency.

The Board ordered structural remedies to protect the autonomy of the Ontario Locals from further unjustified interference by the IUBAC.

The applicants referred four construction industry grievances to the Board, alleging that the responding contractors failed to post an industry bond as required by an amended collective agreement.

The Board first ruled that the applicants must pay four separate hearing fees, despite the matters being heard together, as the fee schedule is designed for administrative simplicity and cost recovery per referral.

On the merits, the Board found that the responding parties, who did not appear, violated the collective agreement by failing to post the required $100,000 bond.

The Board ordered the responding parties to post the bond and reimburse the applicants' filing and hearing fees.

The applicant union sought to consolidate two files and claimed successorship rights.

The International Union sought intervenor status.

The Board consolidated the files and granted the International Union limited status to intervene solely on the issue of successorship, finding it had a legal interest in the transfer of jurisdiction but no interest in the interpretation of the collective agreement.

The Carpenters and Labourers unions disputed the assignment of work involving the dismantling and removal of seats from the North Grandstand of Exhibition Stadium prior to its demolition.

The employer had assigned the work to a composite crew of approximately 60% labourers and 40% carpenters.

The Labourers claimed exclusive jurisdiction based on a collective agreement appendix covering maintenance and repair of seating in the Stadium.

The Board found that the appendix applied to an operating venue, not demolition, and upheld the employer's assignment to a composite crew as reasonable and consistent with the practice in the rest of Exhibition Place.