3 total
Preliminary human rights referral decisions are reviewable for reasonableness and warrant significant judicial restraint.
In an administrative law appeal, the appellant municipality challenged a referral decision by a provincial human rights commission to appoint a board of inquiry regarding alleged discriminatory school-funding arrangements affecting a minority-language school community.
The Court held that referral decisions at this preliminary screening stage are reviewable on reasonableness, with strong judicial restraint against premature intervention in ongoing administrative processes.
The Court clarified that older jurisdictional framing tied to preliminary questions should no longer govern this context.
Applying the proper standard, the commission had a reasonable basis in law and on the evidence to refer the novel and complex complaints for inquiry.
Board splits work assignment: trades handle uncrating and concurrent disposal, Labourers handle subsequent clean-up.
Four related jurisdictional disputes were filed regarding the assignment of work involving the uncrating, unpacking, and disposal of packaging material for a direct strip mill.
The employer had assigned the work to various trades, and the Labourers grieved the assignment.
The Board held that the uncrating of equipment and the dismantling or disposal of packaging material during the uncrating process was properly assigned to the trades.
However, once the equipment was entirely uncrated, the disposal and clean-up of the remaining packaging material was the work of the Labourers.
Displacement certification applications dismissed as untimely due to ongoing interest arbitration under the HLDAA.
The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification at two hospitals.
The intervener union objected that the applications were untimely under the Labour Relations Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).
The Board found that because the interest arbitration process under the HLDAA had commenced and the resulting collective agreements were either not yet finalized or finalized within 90 days of the two-year statutory period, the open periods were delayed by operation of section 10(12) of the HLDAA.
Consequently, the applications were dismissed as untimely.
The Board declined the intervener's request to impose a bar on future applications by the applicant.
