3 total
Motion to set aside order denying extension of time for judicial review dismissed for lack of merit.
The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request for an extension of time to file a judicial review application.
The underlying dispute involved a duty of fair representation complaint against her union following an arbitration that reinstated her without compensation.
The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision, and noting that the proposed fresh evidence would not have altered the outcome.
The motion was dismissed without costs.
Motion for extension of time to seek judicial review of OLRB decision dismissed due to unexplained delay and weak merits.
The self-represented applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision.
The applicant sought to challenge the Board's finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation after it declined to seek judicial review of an arbitration award.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the eight-month delay was not adequately explained, the delay caused substantial prejudice to the timely resolution of labour disputes, and the underlying application for judicial review lacked merit.
Former employees' motion to intervene in an appeal regarding a termination damages fund was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion by 94 former employees (proposed interveners) to intervene as an added party in an appeal between 2505243 Ontario Limited and Princes Gates GP Inc. The employees sought to protect a $2.063 million fund set aside for their potential termination claims by the trial judge.
The motion was opposed by Princes Gates GP Inc., while 2505243 Ontario Limited took no position.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that although the proposed interveners had a direct financial interest, their submissions would largely duplicate those of 2505243 Ontario Limited and risked introducing a new, unlitigated issue (common employer) from a separate class proceeding.
