5 total
Motion to intervene granted as moving parties had significant financial interest in the judicial review outcome.
Professional Supply Canada Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited brought a motion to be added as intervenors and parties to an application for judicial review.
The underlying application challenged a variance granted by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority for the installation of direct gas-fired heaters at Ford Canada's facilities.
The court found that both moving parties had a significant financial interest in the proceedings, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and would provide a unique perspective.
The motion was granted, and the moving parties were added as respondents.
Judicial review of OLRB decision dismissed; finding that employer was bound by collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision finding it bound by a provincial collective agreement with the respondent union.
The OLRB had determined that a 1998 memorandum of agreement signed by the employer ratified earlier agreements and waived any right to challenge their validity.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the OLRB's determination of union representation rights fell within its specialized jurisdiction and was protected by privative clauses.
Applying the patently unreasonable standard of review, the court found no basis to interfere with the OLRB's decision.
Human rights complaints against employer and union for racial discrimination in discipline and grievance handling dismissed.
The complainant, a black man, alleged that his employer, Southam Murray Printing, discriminated against him on the basis of race by disciplining and ultimately dismissing him.
He also alleged that his union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 419, discriminated against him by failing to adequately represent him in the grievance process.
The Board of Inquiry reviewed the history of the complainant's employment, including several disciplinary incidents and his eventual termination for refusing a work assignment.
The Board found that the employer had plausible, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions and that the union had made good faith efforts to represent the complainant.
The complaints were dismissed, and the respondents' request for costs was denied.
Board of Inquiry has inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate human rights hearings into separate liability and remedy phases.
During a human rights complaint hearing regarding the complainant's dismissal, the respondent employer and union moved to bifurcate the proceedings, requesting that the initial hearings be restricted to the issue of liability, with remedial issues such as compensation to be determined at a later hearing if necessary.
The complainant and the Ontario Human Rights Commission opposed the motion, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to divide the hearing process under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
The Board of Inquiry held that, in the absence of specific legislative guidance, it possesses an inherent power to control its own procedures, including the capacity to bifurcate proceedings.
Finding that bifurcation would reduce costs and expedite the process without prejudicing the complainant's rights, the Board granted the motion.
Preliminary objections dismissed; prior grievance arbitration does not render human rights complaint res judicata.
The respondents raised preliminary objections to the hearing of human rights complaints alleging racial discrimination in employment and union representation.
The employer and union argued that the complaints should be dismissed due to unreasonable delay and that the prior dismissal of the complainant's grievance at arbitration rendered the matter res judicata.
The employer also objected to the Board hearing complaints against multiple respondents contemporaneously, while the union argued that its representational services were not covered by the Code.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed all preliminary objections, holding that it lacked discretion to dismiss complaints for delay, that res judicata did not apply because human rights are statutory and additional to collective agreement rights, that it had implicit power to hear related complaints together, and that discriminatory provision of union representation services violates the Code.
