Elizabeth J. Forster

The corporate defendant was found liable at trial for terminating the contracts of dependent contractor taxi drivers without notice.

The trial judge also found the individual directors liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the finding of liability against the individual directors, holding that they were not parties to the contract and there was no evidence of tortious conduct such as intentional interference with economic relations or inducing breach of contract.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A teleconference summary hearing was scheduled, and proper notice was sent to the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing, while counsel for the respondents appeared.

After waiting the customary half hour, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability sought an order for the production of documents related to the respondent's long-term disability policy and its definition of a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal allowed the request in part, ordering the respondent to produce any relevant guidelines or policies issued by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, as the respondent was in a better position to identify them even if they were in the public domain.

The Tribunal declined to order production of documents that the respondent stated did not exist.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award dismissing its grievance for delay.

The arbitrator found that the union failed to explain a one-year delay in scheduling the resumption of the arbitration hearing, contrary to the collective agreement's requirement to expedite proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and exercise of discretion to be reasonable, and noting that the union's delay in perfecting the judicial review application also militated against granting relief.

The applicant, an injured worker receiving WSIB benefits, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability and colour in providing vocational rehabilitation services.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' recommendations to terminate the applicant's Labour Market Re-entry plan and deny vacation were justified by his poor attendance, which was not shown to be related to his disability.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination based on colour or in the respondents' communications with the applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a health care aide and former supporter of a rival union, applied for a job posting using a blank piece of paper instead of the designated form.

Her application was discarded, and the union refused to pursue her grievance or accept the employer's offer to rerun the competition.

The applicant alleged the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted in bad faith, driven by antipathy towards the applicant due to her past union affiliations, and upheld the complaint.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred when the respondent purchased a plant and equipment from a predecessor company.

The Board found that the predecessor had ceased operating the plant 18 months prior to the transaction and that the respondent, which had been operating a parallel business, purchased idle assets to improve its own existing business.

The Board concluded that there was no transfer of a part of the predecessor's business that supported the employment of the employees represented by the applicant, and therefore dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two related construction companies constituted one employer and were bound by its collective agreement.

The respondent companies were under common control, but one operated as a unionized company while the other operated non-union.

When the unionized company was denied a subcontract because it lacked affiliation with the Carpenters union, the non-union company signed a voluntary recognition agreement with the Carpenters to secure the work.

The Board found that the Carpenters' bargaining rights were validly acquired based on pre-existing contractual obligations and declined to exercise its discretion to revoke those rights, dismissing the application.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervener union as the bargaining agent for insulation mechanics employed by the respondent.

The intervener opposed the application, alleging under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent employer had unlawfully hired employees to support the applicant and defeat the intervener's bargaining rights.

The Board found no evidence of a collusive arrangement or employer support, dismissing the section 12 allegations.

As the applicant demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote.