David Watson

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability (multiple chemical sensitivity) against his employer and union.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in a prior union grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had fully addressed the issue of accommodating the applicant's disability, including his need for a smoke-free workplace, and dismissed that portion of the applications.

However, the Tribunal found that the arbitrator did not address the applicant's allegations of harassment and reprisal.

The request to dismiss was granted in part, and a hearing was ordered for the remaining claims.

The applicant union breached a settlement agreement by paying a $1,000 photocopying fee late.

The responding employers sought to have the applications dismissed as a consequence of the breach, and requested that the Board consider representations made during the mediation process.

The Board panel, having mediated the settlement, decided to recuse itself from determining the consequences of the breach, as it would be inappropriate for the panel to hear evidence regarding confidential mediation communications.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to assign a different panel to hear the employers' request for dismissal.

The responding party, Lardale Construction Inc., requested reconsideration of the Board's previous decision to recuse itself from hearing the matter.

The Board accepted that the parties were not given an adequate opportunity to make submissions on the recusal issue.

Consequently, the Board rescinded its recusal decision and directed the parties to file submissions on whether the panel should recuse itself and refer the matters to a different panel.

The Board heard a displacement application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint in the construction industry.

The parties reached an agreement that three specific individuals were not entitled to vote as they were not at work on the application date.

Due to scheduling conflicts, the hearing for the remaining unfair labour practice complaint was adjourned to March 2002.

The Board directed the employer to post a notice reminding employees of their rights under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, pending the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

During the proceedings, the panel assisted the parties in reaching Minutes of Settlement regarding the production and copying of documents, which required the applicant to pay $1,000 to each responding party by a specified date.

The applicant defaulted on the payment deadline, prompting the responding parties to seek dismissal of the application.

Because the panel members had been involved in mediating the settlement, they expressed concern about the impact of the dispute on the mediation process and decided to recuse themselves.

The matter was adjourned and referred to the Registrar for assignment to a new panel to determine the consequences of the breach.

The union brought a motion to dismiss an application for termination of bargaining rights in the construction industry.

The union argued that on the date of the application, there were no individuals employed by the employer working in the construction industry.

The Board found that the employees, who were preparing their trucks at the employer's yard after a seasonal layoff, were not engaged in the construction industry on the application date because there was no nexus to a construction site.

As there were no employees in the bargaining unit on the application date, the Board granted the union's motion and dismissed the termination application.

The applicant union brought an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint.

Several responding parties sought to bring a motion to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint against them on the basis that it did not make out a prima facie case.

The Board directed that the prima facie motion be heard in writing and set a schedule for submissions.

The parties agreed on the voting status of one individual, and the Board directed the counting of the ballots from the representation vote, deferring the determination of the status of two other individuals.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board convened a hearing regarding multiple applications under sections 1(4) and 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and related unfair labour practice complaints.

On consent of the parties, the Board adjourned a related construction industry grievance referral until the related employer and sale of business applications are disposed of.

The Board also amended the style of cause to reflect a union name change, issued an oral production order, and set further hearing dates.

The responding party requested an adjournment of the final day of hearing because its counsel had ceased acting.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, noting that difficulties between parties and their counsel do not generally justify an adjournment.

The Board directed that the hearing would proceed as scheduled unless the applicant consented to the adjournment.

The applicant union sought to confirm service of its application on the responding party, Sir Forming Limited.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that Sir Forming Limited had received actual notice of the application through delivery to its principal, despite his refusal to accept subsequent documents.

The Board also granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application against Italarm Construction Ltd. without prejudice, as service could not be effected.

The Board issued directions regarding outstanding production issues, particulars, and the scheduling of future hearing dates.

The Labourers union and several individual employees challenged the validity of collective agreements entered into between the Carpenters union and five trim carpentry companies based on voluntary recognition.

The challenges were brought under section 66 of the Labour Relations Act, which requires the incumbent union to prove it was entitled to represent the employees at the time the agreements were signed.

The Board found that the Carpenters union's evidence of employee support, consisting of stale membership cards and a poorly attended ratification vote held six months prior to the agreements, was insufficient to meet the statutory onus.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the applications or order a representation vote, and rejected arguments that individual employees were denied natural justice.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Following an unfair labour practice complaint, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to a second vote, but the union reserved the right to challenge the eligibility of two employees hired after the application date on the basis that they were not employed in the 'representative period'.

The Board held that the term 'representative period' is a term of art referable to the application date.

Consequently, the two challenged employees were not entitled to vote in the second representation vote.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and delivered it by placing it in the responding party's rural mailbox.

The union organizers accidentally raised the mailbox flag, causing the letter carrier to pick up the application and place it in the mail system.

The responding party did not receive the application until later.

The Board found that placing the application in the mailbox constituted valid delivery under the Rules, as it was the customary location for the business to receive documents.

The Board extended the time for the responding party to file its response and found no significant prejudice.

The applicant union requested to add Richard H. Gay Holdings Ltd. and Jarigay Investments Limited as responding parties and to amend its production request to include documents relating to these entities.

The Board granted the request to add the responding parties and directed the Registrar to reprocess the Notices to Employees.

Regarding the production of documents pursuant to s. 1(5) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board directed the responding parties to bring all arguably relevant documents in their possession or control to the next scheduled hearing date, where the parties could make submissions on any outstanding production issues.

Novopharm held a compulsory licence for the patented medicine nizatidine, owned by Eli Lilly.

Novopharm and Apotex entered into a supply agreement whereby Novopharm would obtain the medicine and supply it to Apotex.

Eli Lilly sought to terminate Novopharm's licence, arguing the agreement constituted an impermissible sublicence, and sought prohibition orders against the issuance of Notices of Compliance to both Novopharm and Apotex.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the supply agreement did not constitute a sublicence, as it did not grant Apotex the independent right to exercise Novopharm's licensed rights.

The Court also held that Apotex's proposed reformulation of the bulk medicine into final-dosage form would not infringe Eli Lilly's patents.

The appeals by Novopharm and Apotex were allowed.

The applicants referred grievances to the Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent failed to employ their members for work on a cargo vessel.

The respondent argued the work was performed by its Marine Division under different collective agreements and was not construction work.

The Board held it has jurisdiction under section 126 to hear grievances arising from construction industry collective agreements, regardless of whether the specific work is deemed construction.

The Board also denied intervener status to another union that claimed the work but had not filed a jurisdictional dispute, finding it had no legal right to participate in the grievance proceedings.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Millwrights and the U.A. over work on a paper making machine, the parties sought a preliminary ruling on the geographic scope of area past practice evidence.

The Millwrights argued for limiting evidence to the local Board area, while the U.A. argued for province-wide evidence due to the specialized nature of the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that while past practice is typically limited to the local Board area, the unique nature of the work and the overlapping territorial jurisdictions of the two local unions warranted an expanded scope.

The Board restricted the evidence to Board areas 17, 19, 21, 22, and the adjacent white area.

The applicant parent union applied for certification shortly after its local union's application for the same unit was dismissed and a six-month bar was imposed.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the parent and local were the same entity under the union's constitution, or alternatively, that the Board should exercise its discretion to refuse the new application.

The Board held that the parent union and its local are distinct trade unions under the Labour Relations Act.

Finding no compelling reason to exercise its discretion to bar the parent union's application, the Board dismissed the respondent's objections and directed that the application be entertained.

One Board Member dissented.

The appellant sought a patent for a new soybean variety developed through artificial cross-breeding.

The Commissioner of Patents and the Federal Court of Appeal rejected the application.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that the appellant failed to meet the disclosure requirements under s. 36(1) of the Patent Act.

The specification did not adequately describe the steps involved in the cross-breeding process to allow a person skilled in the art to reproduce the invention.

The Court further held that merely depositing a sample of the seeds did not satisfy the statutory disclosure requirement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to hire the grievor, a black carpenter, because of his race or colour, contrary to the collective agreement.

The grievor had repeatedly applied for work at a construction site and was told there was no work, but minutes later a white carpenter was hired.

The employer claimed the white carpenter was hired because the superintendent knew his work from a previous project.

The Board found the employer's explanation lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies in the superintendent's testimony and his failure to acknowledge the grievor's recent employment with the same employer.

The Board concluded that the refusal to hire was discriminatory and upheld the grievance, remaining seized of the remedy.