Denis J. Power

The appellant challenged the trial judge's conclusion that a payment did not fall within the language of an integration provision.

The Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the trial judge erred.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellant, a former Superintendent of Education, had his position declared redundant during a restructuring of the respondent School Board.

He was transferred to a project officer position and subsequently commenced an action for wrongful dismissal more than a year later.

The respondents sought to dismiss the action based on the six-month limitation period under s. 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the limitation period did not apply because the appellant's claim related to the internal implementation of the reorganization, which is incidental to the Board's public mandate and predominantly of a private character.

The appeal was allowed and the action permitted to proceed.

The appellant school superintendent sued after a school board declared his position redundant and transferred him to a lesser role.

The respondents argued the claim was barred by the six-month limitation in s. 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The majority held that the limitation does not protect all acts of a public authority as a matter of status and applies only where the plaintiff's claim correlates to a public duty or power of a public character.

Although the board's overall reorganization was a public initiative, the implementation affecting the appellant was characterized as an internal labour relations matter with a predominantly private aspect.

The appeal was allowed and the action was permitted to proceed against the board.

The complainant trade union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices during collective bargaining by refusing to disclose a salary survey, refusing to provide particulars of existing salaries and proposed adjustments, communicating directly with employees to disparage the union, and unilaterally implementing salary adjustments during the statutory freeze period.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated sections 15, 64, 67, and 79 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, bargain in good faith, produce the salary survey, compensate the union and employees for losses, and post a notice of its violations.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the complainant union requested an order directing the respondent employer to produce a salary survey and other documents related to unilateral salary adjustments.

The employer argued the survey was irrelevant and its production would grant the ultimate remedy sought in the complaint.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to order production of documents relevant to the issues, finding the survey's existence and content relevant to the employer's motivation.

The Board ordered production of the survey and documents the employer intended to rely on, noting that the union was bound by an implied undertaking not to use the documents for collateral purposes such as collective bargaining.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The respondent employer and intervener union argued that the employees in question were 'form setters' or labourers covered by an existing collective agreement, not carpenters.

The Board examined the work performed by the 25 individuals in dispute and concluded that they were all performing traditional carpenter's work on a substantial and continuous basis.

Consequently, the Board determined that all 25 employees fell within the applicant's proposed bargaining unit.