Ian Scott

The Canada Labour Relations Board found that a concerted refusal by production employees to work overtime constituted an unlawful strike and ordered the union and employer to submit the overtime issue to arbitration.

The union applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the strike declaration but set aside the arbitration order as beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

Both the union and the Board appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to determine if a strike existed and its decision was not patently unreasonable, but the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering arbitration, as the Canada Labour Code did not confer such power.

The appellant appealed a jury award of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act following the suicide of the respondent's husband, which occurred sixteen months after a motor vehicle accident caused by the appellant's negligence.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the foreseeability of suicide.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the parties had agreed before trial to limit the jury's consideration solely to the issue of causation, thereby subsuming the issue of foreseeability.

Two non-union longshoremen complained to the Canada Labour Relations Board that their respective unions breached the duty of fair referral under s. 161.1 of the Canada Labour Code.

The Board found clear breaches and, under its broad remedial powers in s. 189, ordered the unions to admit the complainants to membership and to establish proper referral rules.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the membership orders, finding the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals, holding that the Board's remedial authority under s. 189 is broad enough to permit such orders in special cases to remedy the adverse consequences of the unions' failure to comply with the Code.

The appellant police association appealed a decision quashing an arbitration award that included a collective agreement clause reimbursing officers for legal expenses incurred from criminal or statutory charges flowing from their duties.

The lower courts held that the clause interfered with the statutory discretion granted to the municipality under s. 24(6) of The Police Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the permissive power to indemnify in s. 24(6) did not preclude the establishment of a collective bargaining regime under s. 29(2) regarding working conditions.

The appellant municipality appealed a custody order under s. 20 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act that directed it to pay for the support of a juvenile delinquent placed in a group home.

The municipality challenged the constitutional validity of s. 20(2) of the Act, arguing it was ultra vires Parliament.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 20(2) was not valid criminal law or necessarily incidental to it, as it improperly imposed a financial burden on municipal institutions created by the province.

The appellant contractor bid on a railway siding project for the respondent.

Before bidding, the appellant received an inaccurate estimate of the rock excavation volume from the respondent's employee.

The construction contract contained a non-reliance clause stating the contractor did not rely on any information given by the respondent.

When the excavation required substantially more work, the appellant sued for breach of collateral warranty and negligent misrepresentation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the non-reliance clause precluded both the formation of a collateral warranty and the assumption of a duty of care necessary for negligent misrepresentation.

The appellant union refused to proceed with a part-time employee's dismissal grievance, arguing part-time employees had no grievance rights under the collective agreement.

The Canada Labour Relations Board found the union breached its statutory duty of fair representation and ordered the grievance to proceed to arbitration at the union's expense.

The union sought judicial review, alleging the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board's decision was protected by a privative clause and its interpretation of its statutory powers was not patently unreasonable, thus no jurisdictional error occurred.

The appeal was quashed.

The Ontario Legislature enacted The Residential Tenancies Act, 1979, establishing the Residential Tenancy Commission to oversee and enforce landlord and tenant rights, including the power to make eviction and compliance orders.

The Executive Council referred questions to the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the province's authority to grant these powers.

The Court of Appeal found the provisions ultra vires.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-step test for determining whether a provincial grant of power violates section 96 of the British North America Act.

The Court concluded that the powers to order eviction and compliance were historically exercised by section 96 courts, remained judicial in their institutional setting, and were the central adjudicative function of the Commission rather than being ancillary to an administrative scheme.

The appeal was dismissed, and the provisions were held ultra vires.

The respondent union obtained an arbitration award against Fanshawe College regarding vacation pay and holiday entitlement.

The union then sought to enforce this award against the appellant colleges, who were not parties to the arbitration, arguing that centralized bargaining under The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 1975 meant all colleges were bound by the award.

The union initiated contempt proceedings when the appellants refused to comply.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the statutory framework and the collective agreement did not establish centralized arbitration.

The appellant colleges were not notified of or invited to participate in the arbitration, and therefore were not bound by the award.

The appeal was allowed and the contempt proceedings were dismissed.