D. Brown

The accused was tried on a historical sexual assault allegation arising from alleged incidents in 1986 involving a child complainant and an older cousin.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court held that the case turned on credibility and reliability, and drew a distinction between the complainant's sincerity and the reliability of his recollection.

The court identified multiple inconsistencies between the complainant's trial evidence, prior statements, and preliminary-hearing testimony, together with admitted prior false testimony, evidence of animus, and concerns associated with recovered memory unsupported by objective confirmatory evidence.

The court concluded it would be dangerous to convict on that evidence and dismissed the charge.

The applicant applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

A dispute arose over the number of employees in the bargaining unit, specifically whether temporary agency workers should be included.

The Board found that despite the 'all employee' description in the collective agreement, neither the union nor the employer ever intended for agency workers to be part of the bargaining unit.

The Board concluded that agency workers are not employees in the bargaining unit for the purposes of section 57 of the Labour Relations Act, and directed the matter to be relisted to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The applicant union applied under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business or related employer status between Port Weller Dry Docks and Hamilton Marine.

The respondent and intervener raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because Hamilton Marine's business of performing running repairs on ships fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that Hamilton Marine's operations were an essential component of navigation and shipping, and that its business extended beyond the limits of Ontario.

Consequently, the Board held that the labour relations of Hamilton Marine's employees were governed by the Canada Labour Code, not provincial legislation, and terminated the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.