Kelvin Stanley Stephen Kucey

The Professional Conduct Committee alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to meet continuing professional development requirements, submitting a false declaration, and failing to comply with professional standards in four compilation engagements.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee proceeded in his absence, qualified the investigator as an expert witness, and found all allegations proven.

The Committee revoked the Member's membership, imposed a $15,000 fine, and ordered $16,500 in costs, citing his prior disciplinary history and the seriousness of making false statements to the regulator.

The Appellant brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's order revoking his registration as a real estate broker pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal applied the three-part RJR MacDonald test.

While the Appellant established a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured him, he failed to establish irreparable harm.

However, weighing the elements holistically, the Tribunal concluded the overall justice of the matter favoured granting the stay.

The stay was granted for nine months, with the Appellant's registration reinstated subject to strict conditions, including close supervision.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a real estate broker.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's criminal conviction for sexual assault against an employee and his failure to disclose a collateral property management business on his renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, taken together, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration.

The appellant, a real estate broker facing revocation of his registration, brought a motion to exclude evidence of his prior criminal conviction for sexual assault and findings from his divorce proceedings.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the criminal judgments were admissible under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, as they constituted judicially determined facts rather than mere summaries of previously admitted evidence.

The family court findings were admitted for the limited purpose of explaining the Registrar's investigation narrative.

The Registrar's cross-motion to admit pleadings and financial statements from those proceedings as public documents was dismissed.

Appellants appealed sentences imposed for trading in real estate without registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The trial court imposed fines of $2,500 per count on each defendant (totalling $20,000 each).

The appellants challenged the fines as harsh and excessive.

The appellate court found the trial court erred in principle by failing to inquire into the defendants' financial circumstances and imposed fines that were clearly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The court allowed the appeals and imposed substantially reduced sentences.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the hearing, the parties advised that the matter had settled.

The applicant withdrew her appeal, conceded the allegations against her, and consented to the suspension of her licence for a period of nine months.

The Tribunal ordered the proceedings concluded and disposed of without a hearing on those terms.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which found that a real estate agent's past criminal conduct (assault and breach of a conditional sentence) did not meet the statutory threshold for revoking his registration, but warranted the imposition of conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal has jurisdiction under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 to impose conditions on a registrant even in the absence of a finding that the past conduct threshold for revocation was met.

The court also found that the tribunal's conclusion that the threshold was not met was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the validity of a collective agreement under section 53.

The applicant argued the Board was required to declare the agreement invalid for all purposes, not just for the two certification applications before it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had jurisdiction to restrict its remedy to the applications before it and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent union.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) and a sale of business declaration under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concerning Sobeys and several of its franchisees.

The franchisees acknowledged they were successors under section 69 and bound by the collective agreement.

The union argued that Sobeys exercised such extensive control over the franchisees, particularly Category 3 franchisees, that they should be considered a single employer.

The Board found that while Sobeys exercised significant financial control to protect its loans and maintain franchise standards, the franchisees operated as independent businesses with control over their own labour relations.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration, noting the absence of anti-union animus and finding that the union's bargaining rights were not eroded by the franchise arrangements.

The section 1(4) application was dismissed, and the section 69 declaration was granted.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 63(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A representation vote was held and the ballot box was initially sealed.

At the hearing, the intervenor and applicants moved to count the ballots, which the responding party opposed.

The Board directed the ballots be counted, finding no serious prejudice to the responding party.

As not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the responding party, the application was dismissed.

The union brought an application under section 69 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that a sale of business occurred between Sobeys and several franchisees, or alternatively that they constitute one employer.

The responding parties moved to dismiss the subsection 1(4) application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The union moved for production of the actual franchise agreements.

The Board dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding the union established a prima facie case for relief under subsection 1(4) regarding the relationship between Sobeys and each franchisee.

The Board also granted the union's request for production, allowing union counsel to review the actual contracts subject to confidentiality conditions.

The union filed an application for certification.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve a status dispute regarding a number of employees.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Board granted the union leave to withdraw the application, imposed a one-year certification bar against the union, and ordered the employer to pay $40,000 to the union for costs incurred in advancing the application.

The union applied for certification of employees at a fur dressing company located on a First Nation reserve, owned by the Band Council, and employing primarily Band members.

The employer argued that its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction due to 'Indianness' and the Band's extensive involvement.

The Board applied the functional test from Four B Manufacturing, finding that the operational nature of the business was an ordinary industrial activity (a tannery) and did not touch on Indian status or rights.

The Board concluded that provincial labour relations legislation applied and granted the certification application.

The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

One ballot was segregated and challenged by the union on the basis that the employee worked on the front desk and was therefore excluded from the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The employer argued the employee was in the bargaining unit because she was hired as a housekeeper and continued to work housekeeping shifts.

The Board found that the employee held two distinct part-time positions, one in housekeeping (within the unit) and one on the front desk (excluded).

Because she held a part-time position within the bargaining unit, she was entitled to cast a ballot.

The Board directed a new representation vote to protect the secrecy of her ballot.

The applicants sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the union.

The union alleged that the employer initiated the application and engaged in threats, coercion, or intimidation, contrary to section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer had significantly and influentially involved itself in the initiation and support of the termination application, including providing financial support, facilitating the collection of petition signatures during working hours, and providing transportation to the representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application and ordered the ballots destroyed.

The United Food & Commercial Workers International Union applied for certification of employees at a Canadian Tire franchise.

The employer and a group of objecting employees raised numerous preliminary objections, including allegations of abuse of process, improper panel composition, deficient membership evidence, and managerial interference in the organizing drive.

The Board dismissed most of the objections, finding that the parent union could rely on dual-purpose membership cards and that the union was not required to contact all employees.

However, the Board found that the union's unfair labour practice complaint was filed for tactical reasons and dismissed it as an abuse of process.

The Board also found that the involvement of the Head Cashier in the organizing drive rendered the membership cards of three cashiers who reported to her unreliable, though it did not taint the rest of the evidence.

Finally, due to the persistently disruptive and disrespectful conduct of counsel for the employer and the objecting employees, the Board directed them to attend a show cause hearing regarding potential contempt or a report to the Law Society.

A certificate was issued for the bargaining unit.

The union filed multiple applications for certification for different bargaining units of the employer.

The employer argued that the union was abusing the process to impose a statutory freeze on terms and conditions of employment, and requested that the Board impose a bar on further applications or order a representation vote.

The Board found no evidence of duplicitous conduct by the union, noting that the appropriate bargaining unit was genuinely in dispute.

The Board declined to impose a bar or order a vote, granted leave to withdraw the earlier applications, and issued a certificate to the union for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Zellers was bound by the collective agreement between the union and Woolworth, arguing that a sale of a business had occurred under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Woolworth had terminated its lease in a shopping mall, and the landlord subsequently negotiated a new lease with Zellers.

Zellers completely renovated the premises and hired its own employees, with only five former Woolworth employees being hired through a standard application process.

The Board applied an instrumental analysis and found that no operational entity or constituent components of Woolworth's business had passed to Zellers, other than the physical location.

The application was dismissed as no sale of a business took place.

The applicant union sought an order determining the effective date for the combination of several bargaining units at various retail stores of the responding party employer.

The Board had previously ordered the combination but reserved on the effective date.

The employer argued the combination should be effective only when every unit had entered into a collective agreement, while the union sought an immediate combination.

The Board found no reason to delay the combination, noting that deferring would not eliminate implementation complexities and that concluding terms for the units would be reached against the framework of an eventual combined unit.

The Board ordered the bargaining units combined effective immediately.

The applicant union sought to combine several bargaining units at various retail stores in Ontario under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to combine units that had already given notice to bargain and invoked statutory negotiation processes, and alternatively, that doing so would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to combine the units regardless of the stage of collective bargaining.

The Board found that combining the units would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation, and directed the combination of the units, while reserving on the effective date to allow the parties to address transitional issues.