D. Jeffries

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the constitutionality of Bill 66, which amended the Labour Relations Act to deem municipalities as non-construction employers.

The union argued this violated section 2(d) of the Charter by nullifying their collective agreements and subcontracting protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly applied binding precedent and that the amendments did not substantially interfere with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The City of Hamilton successfully moved to dismiss an application challenging its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy on the basis of mootness, after the City suspended the policy.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicants achieved significant success by prompting the policy's suspension and were entitled to partial indemnity costs up to that date.

The City was entitled to partial indemnity costs for its successful motion to dismiss.

The court set off the respective costs entitlements and ordered that no costs be paid by either party.

The applicants, non-unionized employees of the City of Hamilton, challenged the termination provisions of the City's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy under the Charter.

After the application was commenced, the City suspended the termination provisions indefinitely and brought a motion to dismiss the application for mootness.

The court granted the motion, finding no live controversy existed because the provisions were suspended and no applicants had suffered adverse consequences.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, citing judicial economy and the hypothetical nature of any ruling on a suspended policy.

In an application for certification where the BACU sought to displace the IUBAC as the bargaining agent for bricklayers employed by Kvaerner Jaddco, the Board addressed several preliminary issues.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, permitted the withdrawal of a related grievance, and dismissed allegations regarding the order of names on the ballot and forced membership card signing.

However, the Board found that due to a series of administrative and logistical errors by the Board and the parties, employees did not receive adequate notice of the initial representation vote.

Consequently, the Board ordered a second representation vote to be held.

The Board determined the status of the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (BACU) following a dispute with the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (IUBAC).

The IUBAC had purported to revoke the charters of the Ontario Provincial Council (OPC) and several locals.

The BACU claimed it was the transformed OPC or its successor.

The Board found that the BACU could not be the successor to the OPC because the revocation of charters was deemed ineffective under section 147(5) of the Labour Relations Act once a complaint was filed.

Furthermore, the BACU did not meet the statutory definition of an Employee Bargaining Agency.

However, the Board concluded that the BACU and its locals (except Locals 6, 7, and 25) had taken the necessary steps to constitute themselves as independent trade unions within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act.