Doug Wray

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her discrimination application against her employer, union, and others.

The HRTO had dismissed the application against the employer due to delay, finding no good faith reason to extend the one-year time limit under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, and dismissed the claims against the other respondents for lack of factual basis or jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness in the HRTO proceedings and held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union (UA) sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the installation of a water-based fire suppression system.

The Board had assigned the work to the Labourers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) based on area practice, despite UA's argument that the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 (BOSTA) created exclusive jurisdiction for its members.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board reasonably concluded that BOSTA's purpose is to protect the public by determining necessary skill sets, not to override the traditional factors considered in work assignment disputes between competing unions.

The applicant Ironworkers filed two jurisdictional dispute complaints regarding work assigned by the employer to the Millwrights.

The first complaint involved repair and maintenance of slat conveyors at a Toyota plant, which the Board upheld as correctly assigned to the Millwrights based on area practice and the International Agreement.

The second complaint involved the installation of an overhead mono-rail conveyor at a Budd plant.

The Board found the employer incorrectly assigned all phase 2 work to the Millwrights, holding that the work should have been assigned in accordance with the conveyor agreement, which would have allocated a portion of the work to the Ironworkers.

The applicant unions brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a sale of business and/or related employer declaration against the responding companies.

The Board dismissed the related employer application, finding that the preconditions of common control or direction were not met between the original company and the subsequent entities.

However, the Board found that a sale of a business occurred from the original company to the second company, as the second company acquired work intended for the original company and used its equipment.

The applications against the third company were dismissed as it operated in a distinct area of the construction industry and no transfer of business was established.

Local 46 applied for certification of the employees of Elitrex Plumbing Ltd. Elitrex and Local 183 argued that a voluntary recognition agreement executed between them barred the application.

The Board found that Local 183 failed to establish it had majority support of the employees in the bargaining unit at the time the agreement was signed, as critical membership evidence was undated and unsupported by oral testimony.

Furthermore, the employer had interfered by expressing a preference for Local 183 to an employee.

The Board declared the voluntary recognition agreement invalid, terminating Local 183's bargaining rights and allowing Local 46's certification application to proceed.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued the decertification petition was not voluntary because it was circulated on company premises during working hours and some employees were told it was merely to keep their options open.

The Board found no evidence of managerial involvement or support for the petition.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent school board violated the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by awarding a construction contract to a non-union general contractor.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the respondent was acting in its capacity as an owner letting a primary contract, rather than as an employer in the construction industry subcontracting out work.

Because the respondent did not itself subcontract out any work, its actions did not fall within the purview of the collective agreement's subcontracting restriction.