Roy

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The Board had dismissed the complaint on a prima facie basis without a hearing.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, as the union had conducted a reasonable investigation into the grievances.

The Court also dismissed the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness, bias, and language rights, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant, a resident of a co-operative housing corporation, was evicted for failing to perform mandatory volunteer work.

She had provided a doctor's note stating she was medically incapable of performing the work due to a mental disability, but refused to provide further medical details to the co-op board.

The Divisional Court allowed her appeal, holding that the court and the co-op board must apply the Ontario Human Rights Code when considering an eviction under the Co-Operative Corporations Act.

The court found that the co-op had a duty to accommodate the appellant's disability and that requiring her to divulge private medical information as a condition of maintaining her housing violated the Code.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award dismissing a grievance for being filed outside the time limit set out in the collective agreement.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to provide reasons for rejecting a request to extend the time limit under the Canada Labour Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's failure to provide reasons on a subsidiary issue did not amount to a breach of natural justice or render the decision patently unreasonable, as the applicant had failed to adduce evidence justifying an extension.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from seeking access to discovery evidence in parallel U.S. anti-trust litigation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to circumvent Ontario's discovery rules by obtaining discovery in the U.S. before certification of the class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs were merely seeking passive access to evidence already discovered in the U.S. litigation, rather than actively conducting discovery.

The court held that such evidence gathering does not offend Ontario's discovery rules or the implied undertaking rule, and that the U.S. court should determine whether to grant access under its own protective order.