11 total
Motion to dismiss remedy hearing for loss of jurisdiction and reasonable apprehension of bias denied.
The approval holder brought a motion arguing that the Tribunal lost jurisdiction to determine the remedy for a revoked renewable energy approval because the statutory six-month time limit had expired, resulting in a deemed confirmation of the Director's decision.
In the alternative, the approval holder sought the recusal of the Tribunal panel due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it had disposed of the hearing within the statutory time limit when it issued its original decision, and that the deeming provision did not apply to a remedy hearing remitted by the Court of Appeal.
The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the allegations of bias.
Motion to narrow scope of remedy hearing and strike expert witness statements dismissed as premature.
Ostrander brought a motion to narrow the scope of the issues and evidence in a remedy hearing concerning a renewable energy approval for a wind turbine project, and to strike portions of the witness statements of two experts called by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature to narrow the scope of the remedy hearing given its broad remedial jurisdiction and the introduction of fresh evidence.
The Tribunal also declined to strike the expert witness statements, finding the proposed evidence relevant to the remedy and responsive to the fresh evidence.
Motion to define issues and strike witness statements in environmental review hearing dismissed.
The approval holder brought a motion to define the issue to be determined in the remaining portion of the hearing and to strike portions of two witness statements.
The motion was dismissed, with reasons to follow.
Motion for party status dismissed; participant status granted to address remedy in wind park appeal.
The Prince Edward County South Shore Conservancy brought a motion for party status to address the remedy in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the Ostrander Point Wind Park.
The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the request for party status but granted the alternative request for participant status.
The Tribunal ordered that the Conservancy may participate in motions but may not bring them, with reasons to follow.
Applications to vary management cease trade orders to permit a going private transaction denied.
The applicants sought to vary management cease trade orders (MCTOs) under section 144 of the Securities Act to permit trading in connection with a proposed going private transaction by Hollinger Inc. The Commission found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that varying the MCTOs would not be prejudicial to the public interest.
The Commission cited concerns regarding the lack of current audited financial statements, the adequacy of the independent valuation, the potential conflicts of interest in the proposed litigation trust, and evidence of undue influence exerted by related parties on the independent committee and valuator.
The applications were denied.
Extensive blast furnace refit deemed construction work, not maintenance, falling under the ICI provincial agreement.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that work performed by the responding party on a blast furnace was construction work and should have been performed under the ICI provincial agreement.
The responding party and intervenors argued the work was maintenance and properly performed under the General President's Maintenance Agreement.
The Board reviewed the scope of work, which involved extensive replacements and redesigns to bring a decommissioned furnace back into service.
The Board concluded that the totality of the work constituted repair and alteration, making it construction work subject to the ICI agreement.
The matter of damages was remitted to the parties.
PWU certification applications dismissed as it is not a construction trade union under section 126.
The Power Workers' Union (PWU) brought applications for certification to displace the incumbent bargaining agents for construction employees at Ontario Hydro.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board first determined that the PWU must establish it is a 'trade union' within the meaning of section 126 of the Labour Relations Act (a construction trade union) to bring such applications.
After a lengthy hearing, the Board concluded that the PWU is not a construction trade union because it does not have a history of representing construction employees separate and apart from other employees, nor does it possess the established characteristics of a construction trade union.
Consequently, the PWU's applications for certification were dismissed.
Board orders single comprehensive bargaining unit for career and non-career employees, rejecting employer's proposed fragmentation.
The union applied for certification of a single bargaining unit comprising office, clerical, technical, and food services employees at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.
The employer argued for three separate units dividing career and non-career employees, and sought to exclude employees funded by special projects.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that a single, comprehensive bargaining unit was appropriate, finding a shared community of interest among career and long-term non-career employees and emphasizing the Board's aversion to fragmented bargaining structures.
The Board also refused to exclude special project employees, noting the source of funding does not negate their right to collective bargaining.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer's circular restricting union solicitation during school hours was lawful.
The complainant union alleged that the respondent school board committed an unfair labour practice by distributing a circular to occasional teachers during an organizing campaign.
The circular stated that union solicitation should not take place on school premises during the school day and warned of discipline for such conduct.
A subsequent circular clarified that employees could discuss union membership on their own time.
The majority of the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's communications were a valid exercise of its right to maintain order and prevent disruption of the educational program, and did not violate the Labour Relations Act.
A dissenting member would have found an unfair labour practice and ordered a remedial posting.
Union breached duty of fair representation by arbitrarily removing member's hiring hall eligibility.
The complainant alleged that the respondent unions violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing his union dues, removing him from the out-of-work list, and subsequently filing internal union charges against him.
The Board found that the union officials acted arbitrarily and in bad faith by filing charges after an eight-month delay to remove the complainant's good standing status and eligibility for referral from the hiring hall.
The Board ordered the respondents to restore the complainant's good standing and compensate him for lost earnings opportunities.
Board affirms its decision rejecting anti-union petitions after reconsidering evidence without impugned testimony.
The group of objectors requested the Board to reconsider its decision finding that statements of desire (petitions) opposing the union's certification were not voluntary.
The objectors argued the Board improperly relied on testimony from a witness who did not testify in the certification portion of the proceedings.
The Board determined it had jurisdiction to reconsider the matter itself without referring it to a new panel.
Upon reviewing the evidence afresh and explicitly excluding the impugned testimony, the Board concluded that the active involvement of management and the extensive petition-related activities of an employee during working hours created a perception of employer support.
The Board affirmed its original decision that the petitions were not voluntary.
