3 total
Judicial review of OLRB decision dismissed; BOSTA does not override traditional factors in union jurisdictional disputes.
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.
Judicial review of OLRB decision on successor rights dismissed; awarding rights to avoid jurisdictional conflict reasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that denied their successor rights application following the merger of two construction companies.
The Board had awarded bargaining rights for formwork to the Carpenters' Union to avoid jurisdictional conflict, as the merged entity intermingled employees.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to avoid jurisdictional conflict under section 69(6)(c) of the Labour Relations Act was justified, transparent, and intelligible.
Motion to strike granted; settlement privilege protected employer's offer as bad faith claim lacked air of reality.
The defendant employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal statement of claim that referred to a settlement offer and subsequent communications.
The plaintiff argued the communications were not privileged or, alternatively, fell under the exception for pleading bad faith.
The court found the communications were protected by settlement privilege and that the plaintiff's bad faith claim lacked an air of reality, as the dispute centered on a genuine disagreement over contract interpretation.
The motion to strike was largely granted.
