Aaron Hart

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its employees were provincially regulated for labour relations purposes.

The applicant, a track welding company performing work primarily for interprovincial railways, argued its operations fell under derivative federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board correctly applied the derivative jurisdiction test.

The court found the applicant's work involved maintenance of railway infrastructure rather than the operation of the railways themselves, and thus did not meet the exceptional threshold for federal jurisdiction.

The applicant, a secondary-school teacher, sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions dismissing his reprisal application under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The OLRB had dismissed the application as a collateral attack and abuse of process because the applicant had already elected to pursue the same matters through grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the OLRB did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the second application was an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already determined.

Sobeys Capital Inc. applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying Local 633 as a craft bargaining unit for 15 meat department workers at a Toronto supermarket.

Sobeys argued the decision was unreasonable, contrary to precedent, and created an absurd result by leaving the remaining 92 percent of employees non-unionized.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's decisions under both s. 9(3) and s. 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act were reasonable, given the union's long history of representing supermarket meat department employees and the lack of evidence that certification would cause labour relations problems.

The applicant union (UA) sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the installation of a water-based fire suppression system.

The Board had assigned the work to the Labourers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) based on area practice, despite UA's argument that the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 (BOSTA) created exclusive jurisdiction for its members.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board reasonably concluded that BOSTA's purpose is to protect the public by determining necessary skill sets, not to override the traditional factors considered in work assignment disputes between competing unions.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant had been terminated after failing to return to work following the lifting of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, claiming injuries from a car accident prevented his return.

The union filed a grievance but struggled to obtain medical documentation from the applicant to substantiate his incapacity.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and found the OLRB's conclusion that the union did not act arbitrarily was justified, transparent, and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions dismissing her applications against her former employer and union.

She alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to file grievances for post-layoff job applications, and claimed the OLRB process was procedurally unfair and biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bias, that the OLRB's written hearing process afforded procedural fairness, and that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union, as well as a subsequent reconsideration decision.

The complaint arose after the union withdrew several of the applicant's grievances related to discipline he received for refusing to sign a training registration form due to privacy concerns.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decisions were justified, intelligible, and procedurally fair.

The application for judicial review was dismissed without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that upheld an employment standards officer's orders for unpaid wages to the individual respondents.

The applicant argued the respondents were never employees and raised issues of procedural fairness regarding witness coaching.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably relied on documentary evidence due to credibility issues on both sides, and held there was no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings or its failure to address an alternative argument not raised before it.

The moving party sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a 2021 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint as premature.

The court initiated a process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to consider dismissing the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Despite being granted multiple extensions and accommodations for medical issues, the moving party failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the three-year delay or demonstrate apparent grounds for relief.

The court found the proceeding met the test under Rule 2.1 and dismissed the motion.

The applicant union sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions finding that it had abandoned its bargaining rights for certain construction employees, thereby allowing a rival union's certification application to proceed.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably departed from precedent by failing to focus on the union's intention to abandon its rights and by ignoring its 2021 negotiating efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board reasonably applied established principles, properly assessed the objective evidence of the applicant's prolonged inactivity, and correctly concluded that the bargaining rights had been abandoned by 2020 and could not be revived by subsequent conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to delay.

The applicant had waited over six years after his pension was transferred to file the complaint, having pursued other litigation in the interim.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to dismiss the application for delay was reasonable, noting that pursuing other litigation does not justify delay and that the Board is entitled to control its own process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision directing it to pay wages to a former employee.

The employer argued the Board's credibility findings were inconsistent and its decision unreasonable regarding the employee's refusal of a call-in shift.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's factual findings and noting that a trier of fact may accept parts of a witness's evidence while rejecting others.

The applicant, a former municipal employee, sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision that upheld the respondent municipality's pay equity plan.

The applicant challenged various factual findings, including the exclusion of certain male comparators, the treatment of non-monetary benefits, and the tribunal's refusal to order production of allegedly privileged legal advice.

Applying the Vavilov framework, the Divisional Court found the tribunal's decision to be reasonable, transparent, and intelligible, noting that the court's role is not to reweigh evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request for an extension of time to file a judicial review application.

The underlying dispute involved a duty of fair representation complaint against her union following an arbitration that reinstated her without compensation.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision, and noting that the proposed fresh evidence would not have altered the outcome.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent employees within only one division of the company.

The employer argued the Board unreasonably departed from practice by certifying a unit within a division that is not a legal entity, and ignored serious labour relations harm.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably applied the principle that a union's proposed unit will be granted unless it causes serious labour relations problems, and reasonably concluded the employer failed to demonstrate such harm.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision.

The applicant sought to challenge the Board's finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation after it declined to seek judicial review of an arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the eight-month delay was not adequately explained, the delay caused substantial prejudice to the timely resolution of labour disputes, and the underlying application for judicial review lacked merit.

The applicant, a temporary help agency, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming an order to pay unpaid wages to twelve workers.

The applicant argued the workers were employed by a subcontractor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant was the employer under the Employment Standards Act, as the purported subcontractor was not a legitimate enterprise and the applicant exercised control over the workers' assignments.

The employer and seven employees sought judicial review of two decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board: a decision certifying the union as the bargaining agent for a unit of carpenters, and a decision dismissing requests for reconsideration.

The applicants argued the decisions were procedurally unfair because they were made without a hearing, and unreasonable because the Board failed to properly consider allegations that the union organizer used misrepresentation to obtain signed membership cards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's specialized procedures permitted it to decide the matter without a hearing, and that its decisions were rational, logical, and tenable based on the evidence and submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation application against her union.

The OLRB had dismissed the application partly due to delay and partly for failing to establish a prima facie case that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith regarding her termination grievance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the OLRB's conclusions regarding delay or the lack of a prima facie case.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) declaration.

The OLRB had declared Enercare Home & Commercial Services Limited Partnership, Ganeh Energy Services Ltd., and Beaver Energy Services Ltd. to be related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but not Perras Mechanical Services Ltd. The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decision unreasonable for failing to consider bargaining history and collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, and restored the OLRB's original decision.