Daryn M. Jeffries

The Society of United Professionals appealed a Divisional Court decision affirming the Ontario Labour Relations Board's (OLRB) rulings regarding New Horizon System Solutions' refusal to disclose a Master Services Agreement (MSA).

The Society alleged violations of ss. 17 (duty to bargain in good faith) and 70 (interference with union representation) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable, concluding that the MSA was not necessary for the Society to carry out its representational duties under s. 70 and that the s. 17 application was premature when initially brought.

The court also found the OLRB's partial disclosure order under s. 17 and its reliance on counsel's representation regarding a specific MSA article to be reasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision confirming a work assignment to a competing union.

The Board had found that the factor of economy and efficiency favoured the competing union for scaffolding tending work.

The Divisional Court dismissed preliminary objections that the application was moot or premature.

On the merits, the Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable, as it was supported by evidence in the record, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination after her union had already filed grievances on her behalf regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding.

Finding that the grievances were filed first, dealt with the same subject matter, and were referred to arbitration where the arbitrator had authority to apply the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order dismissing her motion for a court-appointed expert under Rule 52.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying claim sought damages for alleged mental harm and the defendant had already obtained an order for the plaintiff to be assessed by a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff requested the court appoint and fund her own psychiatric expert, but the earlier motion judge found the evidentiary record insufficient to justify a court-appointed expert.

Applying the leave test under Rule 62.02(4), the court found no conflicting authorities and no serious reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The court also held the issue did not raise matters of broader importance beyond the litigant’s own case.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and accommodation based on disability.

The respondent argued the application had no reasonable prospect of success, was delayed, and dealt with matters already settled before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding increased scrutiny and termination following the disclosure of a disability required a full hearing to assess the evidence.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied, and the applicant was granted leave to amend the application.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance.

She argued that the delay in the grievance process was prejudicial and that the subject matter differed.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the issues in the application and the grievance, both relating to workplace accommodation.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate, finding that continued deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The respondents requested the removal of individual respondents from two human rights applications alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the individual respondents acted within the scope of their employment and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also ordered the consolidation of the two applications, noting common parties, overlapping facts, and the public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicants requested that their human rights applications, which had been deferred pending grievance proceedings, be held in abeyance following the settlement of those grievances.

The respondents argued the applications should be dismissed or withdrawn pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Tribunal declined to hold the matters in abeyance, noting that deferral is intended to avoid concurrent proceedings and the grievance process had concluded.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to either file a request to withdraw the applications or a request to reactivate them within 7 days, failing which the applications may be deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early disclosure of documents referenced in the respondents' Response, arguing they were necessary to file a Reply.

The respondents objected, arguing the request was premature.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Rules of Procedure provide for document exchange later in the process and that early production is only ordered in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services held a hearing into the conduct of the members of the Wallaceburg Police Services Board.

The Board had laid off three members of the police service (two cadets and one civilian communicator) to meet budget cuts, without obtaining the Commission's consent under section 40 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the layoffs constituted a reduction in the size of the force, requiring consent, and that the Board's reliance on the probationary termination provisions in section 44 was improper.

The Commission concluded that the Board members' actions constituted misconduct and a failure to perform their duties in a satisfactory manner.

The four current members of the Board were removed from their positions.