James Gregor Fyshe

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment awarded by the trial judge in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the award of damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the Union and the Union requested to continue as an intervenor.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The Tribunal also addressed outstanding disclosure issues, noting the corporate respondent's failure to comply with previous disclosure orders, and ordered the respondent to provide contact information for two proposed witnesses.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings for the production of documents.

The corporate respondent had failed to comply with disclosure rules and demanded the applicant's counsel visit its office to review documents and pay for copies.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered the corporate respondent to immediately provide a list of relevant documents and produce them by a specified date, or formally claim privilege.

The employer brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the human rights application for delay, as it was filed approximately eight months past the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to severe physical and mental disabilities, including CFIDS, ADHD, and GAD, which caused significant cognitive dysfunction, compounded by living in poverty.

The Tribunal admitted the applicant's medical evidence over the employer's procedural objections.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the good faith test for the delay and that the employer failed to establish significant prejudice.

The employer's request to dismiss the application was denied.

The respondent sued the Ministers of National Revenue and Indian Affairs and CRA officials, alleging they targeted him and his business regarding the tax exemption in s. 87 of the Indian Act.

The appellants moved to strike the Amended Statement of Claim.

The motion judge dismissed the motion in part.

The appellants appealed, focusing on the Superior Court's jurisdiction to declare a GST assessment null and void.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck the claim for declaratory relief, finding the pleadings did not provide a basis in fact or law for such a declaration, without deciding the broader jurisdictional issue.

The applicants sought judicial review and an order of mandamus to compel the Minister of Natural Resources to require public consultation and amendments to Forest Management Plans before two forestry companies could restructure their operations, close certain sawmills, and redirect wood supply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Plans regulate forest operations and sustainability, not the processing of harvested wood at specific mills.

As the restructuring did not change the forest operations or impact sustainability, no Plan amendments or public consultations were required under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the evidence on certain key issues was less clear than it could have been, the trial judge's findings were supported by the record and there was no misappreciation of the evidence.

The applicant union brought applications alleging a sale of business and unfair labour practices against the responding trucking companies.

One of the responding companies, Supply Chain Express Inc. (SCE), raised a constitutional question, arguing its operations were federally regulated under the Canada Labour Code because it engaged in inter-provincial transportation.

The Board examined SCE's operations and found it carried on two separate, unintegrated undertakings: a general freight business that operated inter-provincially (federally regulated) and a dedicated grocery delivery business that operated entirely within Ontario (provincially regulated).

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction over the provincial grocery delivery undertaking and directed the hearings to continue with respect to that portion of the business.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether 40 per cent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit were not represented by a bargaining agent immediately before the changeover date, pursuant to section 23(5) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

As the necessary information was not available, the Board directed the employer to produce payroll records and scheduled a further hearing and representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding ongoing applications involving Supply Chain Express Inc. and Wilson's Truck Lines Limited.

The employer had commenced interprovincial trucking operations and argued its labour relations were now governed by federal legislation.

Noting an impending Divisional Court judicial review hearing on the constitutional jurisdiction issue, the Board directed that hearings would resume regardless of the outcome.

The Board instructed the parties to prepare submissions on how a potential finding of federal jurisdiction by the Canada Industrial Relations Board would affect the Board's ability to adjudicate alleged past violations of the provincial Labour Relations Act, 1995, and the availability of remedies.

The responding party, Supply Chain Express Inc., raised a preliminary objection asserting that its labour relations were governed by federal legislation and that recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code deprived the Ontario Labour Relations Board of jurisdiction to determine its own constitutional jurisdiction.

The Board held that Parliament lacks the constitutional authority to prevent a provincial tribunal from determining its own jurisdiction, as labour relations is a matter of exclusive, not shared, jurisdiction.

The Board also denied a request to adjourn the proceedings pending a potential application for judicial review, noting the lengthy ongoing nature of the hearings.

Following the amalgamation of Moore Township and Sombra Township into St. Clair Township, OPSEU applied for certification to represent employees of Moore Township.

St. Clair Township subsequently filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (PSLRTA).

The issue was whether OPSEU could participate in the PSLRTA process given that its certification application was filed just prior to the amalgamation changeover date.

The Board held that OPSEU had demonstrated a sufficient interest in the proceedings by virtue of its certification application and successful representation vote, and exercised its discretion to grant OPSEU intervenor status in the PSLRTA application.

The applicant trade unions filed unfair labour practice complaints against the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Labour, alleging that the respondents unlawfully threatened legislative changes to the construction industry's provincial bargaining scheme (Bill 69) to pressure the unions into abandoning certain bargaining rights.

The unions also argued that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the Board's adjudicators are appointed by the government.

The Board declined to find that its adjudicators were precluded from hearing the case.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaints, holding that the Labour Relations Act does not bind the Crown or its Ministers acting in their legislative or governmental capacities.

Furthermore, the Board found that a government's expression of intent to legislate does not constitute intimidation, coercion, or unlawful interference under the Act.

The applicant union sought an order requiring a non-party, Sobeys Ontario, to produce certain documents prior to the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant had also served a summons on a Sobeys representative.

The responding parties and intervenor objected due to lack of notice.

The Board ruled that it does not have the power under section 111(2)(c) of the Act to order a non-party to produce documents outside of the hearing process.

However, the Board permitted the applicant to summons the individual to appear at the next hearing date, at which time the parties and the summonsed individual could make arguments regarding production and confidentiality.

The applicant employer sought a declaration and cease and desist order regarding an alleged unlawful strike caused by employees refusing to cross a picket line set up by a sister local.

The work stoppage lasted only one day and the underlying dispute was subsequently resolved.

The employer argued a formal declaration was necessary to deter future 'hit and run' strikes.

The Board applied its established policy from Acme Building, declining to inquire further or issue a formal declaration since the strike had ended, but directed the union and employer to post and distribute copies of the decisions to ensure employees and union officials were aware of their legal obligations.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Board for final and binding determination.

At the hearing, the Board issued procedural orders directing the responding parties to file a statement of defence with particulars of sub-contractors, produce payroll documents, and ensure certain individuals remain available to testify.

The application was adjourned to a later date.

The applicant union brought three related applications, including a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96, and an application under section 66.

The parties disputed the order of proceeding and whether the section 1(4) application should be bifurcated from the unfair labour practice issues.

The Board directed that all three files be heard simultaneously initially, with the responding employers calling their evidence first, subject to a later determination on whether to split the proceedings.

The Board also made directions regarding the production of documents and particulars.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration regarding the employer's violation of the union security provisions of the collective agreement by employing non-union members.

In a prior decision, the Board found the employer liable.

In this decision on damages, the Board held that the breach of the collective agreement gave rise to a claim for damages because the union had unemployed members who were ready, willing, and able to perform the work.

The Board rejected the employer's argument that its good faith in attempting to enter into a bona fide subcontract should relieve it from paying damages.

The employer was ordered to pay $18,751.44 to the union.

The applicant union (IWA) sought interim relief in relation to its pending related employer/sale of business and unfair labour practice applications against the responding employers and a rival union (CMEU).

The IWA requested consolidation of the files, expedited hearings, suspension of the CMEU's collective agreement, dues held in trust, bargaining orders, and access to employees.

The Board granted the request to expedite the hearings but dismissed all other requests for interim relief, finding that the requested orders were either substantive rather than procedural, unnecessary to preserve the status quo, or inappropriate given the Board's remedial powers at the conclusion of the litigation.

The employer applied for a declaration of an unlawful strike and a direction prohibiting picketing at its Timmins facility by employees from its Chapleau facility.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter on consent terms, including an undertaking by the union and individual respondents not to picket any Domtar mill in Ontario (except Chapleau) pending the hearing and decision.

The Board granted the adjournment on the agreed terms.