John Hardy McNair

During a judicial review application challenging a coroner's decision not to compel the advance production of tapes for an inquest, an issue arose regarding access to information on USB keys.

The Divisional Court ruled that there was no formal motion before the court regarding media access.

Furthermore, the court determined it did not need to access the information on the USB keys at that time, as the parties had already accessed the information and referred to it in their materials without apparent prejudice.

The appellants, commercial fishers on Lake Erie, challenged the regulatory regime under which the provincial Minister of Natural Resources imposed catch quotas for walleye and yellow perch on their licences.

They argued that the federal Fisheries Act and regulations did not validly delegate this authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister fettered her discretion and acted unreasonably by adopting the catch recommendations of the international Lake Erie Committee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Governor in Council validly sub-delegated the authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister's reliance on the Committee's recommendations was both reasonable and not a fettering of discretion.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision finding that a letter and unsigned Release did not constitute an acknowledgment of debt regarding a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the documents were a mere offer to settle and did not clearly and unequivocally acknowledge that any amount remained owing.

The court awarded costs of $7,500 to the respondents.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the union under the non-ICI collective agreement.

The union argued that the applicant was not performing bargaining unit work on the application date, as he was primarily performing clean-up work in the employer's yard.

The Board found that the collective agreement's recognition clause referred to 'construction projects' and did not cover the yard work performed.

As the applicant was not performing bargaining unit work on the application date, the termination application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent dependent contractor taxi drivers and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer terminated 11 drivers for union activity.

The employer claimed the terminations were strictly for economic reasons due to a downturn in business.

The Board found the employer's economic justification insufficient to explain the specific selection of the 11 drivers, all of whom had recently signed union cards.

The Board inferred anti-union animus, ordered the drivers reinstated with compensation, directed the posting of a notice, and issued a certificate to the union.

During a consolidated hearing for union certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the Ontario Labour Relations Board made several preliminary rulings.

The Board refused to exclude part-time employees and students from the bargaining unit, noting the employer had no history of employing them, despite the plant having only been open for a few months.

The Board also included quality control employees in the unit, finding they shared a community of interest with production employees.

Over the union's objection, the Board ordered the disclosure of the membership card count to ensure all parties understood the case to be met.

Finally, the Board directed the employer to call its evidence first, followed by the objecting employees, and then the union.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had previously applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration, which was granted by another panel of the Board.

The Board held that under section 40a(22) of the Labour Relations Act, it must consider the applications in the order it deems appropriate, and if it grants one, it must dismiss the other.

The Board determined it was appropriate to consider the first contract application prior to the termination application.

Since the first contract application was granted, the termination application was dismissed.