Darragh Meagher

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been reinstated by an arbitrator without back pay after a three-year delay in the arbitration decision.

The union initially sought judicial review to compel the arbitrator's reasons but abandoned the application once reasons were provided, concluding it was unlikely to succeed.

The Divisional Court found the Board's conclusion that the union acted reasonably to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application for judicial review of an OLRB decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint.

The applicant filed an application record containing numerous documents that were not before the OLRB.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike the application record.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, noting the general rule that judicial review is based on the record before the original decision-maker, and no exception applied to admit the new documents.

The applicant's employment was terminated and his union took the matter to arbitration.

After an inordinate delay, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement but denied compensation for lost wages.

The union, relying on legal advice, declined to seek judicial review of the award.

The applicant sought standing to bring his own application for judicial review, which was denied by a motions judge.

On a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to vary that decision, the court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the applicant did not fall within any of the exceptions to the rule of union exclusivity.

The applicant was terminated from his employment and his union, CUPE Local 79, represented him in an arbitration that resulted in his reinstatement without retroactive compensation.

The arbitrator's reasons were delayed by three years.

The union declined to seek judicial review of the decision.

The applicant sought to pursue judicial review on his own behalf, alleging a breach of natural justice due to the delay.

The respondents brought a motion challenging his standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the applications, holding that the applicant did not fall within the narrow exceptions to the principle of union exclusivity, as there was no evidence of inadequate representation by the union.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed five individual grievances concerning post-age 65 retirement benefits.

The arbitrator had upheld the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the issues had already been decided in a prior policy grievance arbitration and were barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The union argued the arbitrator failed to address its new arguments regarding age discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's application of res judicata and abuse of process was reasonable, as the union could have raised the human rights arguments during the initial policy grievance.