G. Scott

The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, arguing that a settlement agreement from prior litigation prohibited the counsel from acting for certain plaintiffs in this action.

The defendant also sought to strike portions of the statement of claim, alleging a breach of the deemed undertaking rule regarding a disputed document.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to set a timetable.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the current claims did not arise directly from the restructuring covered by the settlement agreement and that the deemed undertaking rule did not apply to documents incorporated into a settlement agreement.

The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion and imposed a case management timetable.

The complainant union sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment dispute over the stripping of concrete forms.

The employer had initially assigned the work to a composite crew of labourers and carpenters.

Following a work stoppage by the carpenters, the employer reassigned the work to specific trades.

The respondent union challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing a strike was not imminent.

The Board found that the walk-out constituted a strike and that the threat of a strike remained imminent if the composite crew was reinstated.

The Board held it had jurisdiction and issued an interim order directing the employer to resume using a composite crew, emphasizing the policy objective of not rewarding work stoppages in jurisdictional disputes.