James E. Bowden

Following the release of reasons for judgment, written submissions prompted the court to address issues not previously mentioned.

The court confirmed that the defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff was awarded prejudgment interest pursuant to ss. 127 and 128 of the Courts of Justice Act from January 30, 2010.

The court also ordered post‑judgment interest in accordance with ss. 127 and 129 of the same statute.

A long‑term clerical employee sued for wrongful dismissal after more than 33 years of service with a sole practitioner lawyer whose practice closed.

The defendant failed to appear at trial and the matter proceeded in his absence.

The court applied the Bardal factors, emphasizing length of service and age, and rejected the notion that clerical employees are subject to a cap on reasonable notice.

The employee, aged 66 at termination and intending to work two more years, was awarded damages based on 18 months’ notice plus unpaid vacation pay.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis following a Rule 49 offer to settle that the plaintiff exceeded at trial.

The applicant, a 65-year-old salesperson, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age.

The respondent employer maintained that the applicant was not dismissed but had resigned after a new general manager was hired to take over some of the owner's duties.

The Tribunal applied the test for credibility and found the respondent's version of events more probable, noting the absence of a termination letter and the applicant's own resignation letter.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's inquiries about the applicant's retirement plans were legitimate and that no discriminatory termination occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated complaints made by a resident against the Mayor of the Township of Georgian Bay, alleging breaches of the Code of Conduct including bullying and intimidation of councillors.

The Commissioner dismissed two complaints for lack of jurisdiction as the alleged events occurred before the Code was enacted.

After interviewing the complainant and several councillors, the Commissioner dismissed the remaining complaint, finding no direct evidence of misconduct and concluding that the issues were conflicts of personality and leadership style rather than intentional intimidation.

The applicant's employment was terminated in violation of the Human Rights Code.

In this remedy decision, the Tribunal awarded compensation for lost wages, partial business losses incurred during mitigation, and non-pecuniary damages.

The Tribunal found the applicant reasonably mitigated her losses by participating in a Self Employment Benefit Grant program and starting businesses.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally liable to pay $15,838 for lost wages, $4,058 for business losses, and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status, as well as reprisal, after her employment at a family-owned golf course was terminated.

The Tribunal found that the respondents were aware of the applicant's diabetes and her inability to work long hours, and that this disability was a factor in her dismissal.

The Tribunal held that the respondents failed to accommodate her disability, thereby violating the Human Rights Code.

The claims regarding family status and reprisal were dismissed.

The hearing was bifurcated, with remedies to be determined at a later date.

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the applicant union, arguing it did not receive timely notice of the application and thus failed to post notices to employees.

The Board found that the employer had in fact received the notice in a timely manner but failed to open its mail or post the notices promptly.

The Board held that the employer could not rely on its own failure to post notices or file a timely reply to support its request for reconsideration, nor could it invoke the rights of employees who had not themselves complained of insufficient notice.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

An employee sought reconsideration of the Board's decision certifying the applicant union, alleging improper solicitation techniques and fraud.

The employee claimed another employee circulated a petition opposing the union but never intended to file it, acting as an agent for the union.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no evidence of fraud or abuse of process, and concluded the petitioning employee simply changed his mind.

An employee in the bargaining unit requested reconsideration of the Board's decision certifying the union.

The employee alleged improper solicitation techniques and fraud regarding a petition.

The Board dismissed the allegations of improper solicitation as untimely, since the employee conceded a lack of due diligence in investigating and raising them.

However, the Board found that the allegations of fraud regarding the petition suggested a serious abuse of process and set the matter down for a hearing to allow the employee to call evidence.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of electricians.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the union's provincial collective agreement discriminated on the basis of age by providing preferential treatment to older workers, contrary to the Human Rights Code and section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the Ontario Human Rights Commission intervener status.

The Board found that the impugned provisions, which provided job security and preferred access to less physically demanding jobs for older members, did not constitute prohibited discrimination but were reasonable accommodations.

The Board also resolved a dispute over an employee's inclusion in the bargaining unit and ultimately granted the certification.

The applicant trade unions sought to add Conrad Black and Hollinger Inc. as respondents to related employer and unfair labour practice applications involving Willett Foods Limited and various franchisees.

A previous panel of the Board had already dismissed a similar request by one of the unions to add Black and a predecessor corporation.

The Board applied principles analogous to res judicata and issue estoppel, finding that the new allegations did not materially alter the basis of the claims.

The Board reaffirmed that section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act is not intended merely to provide access to 'deep pockets' absent allegations of a transfer of work or other attempts to frustrate collective bargaining.

The request to add the respondents was denied, and the complaints against them were dismissed.

In a complex proceeding involving nearly two hundred parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding the service of documents and the addition of respondents.

The Board ruled that service on a party's agent or counsel would be sufficient, and established a procedure for amending applications to add respondents by analogy to the Board's Rules of Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide amended filings and notice to all parties.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for consent to prosecute the employer, arising from the reorganization of the employer's business.

The union had also filed grievances under the collective agreement which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Board deferred the unfair labour practice complaint to arbitration, noting the substantial overlap in issues, evidence, and remedies, and retained jurisdiction to ensure the matter proceeds expeditiously.

The Board also adjourned the application for consent to prosecute.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer committed numerous unfair labour practices following an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer engaged in a pervasive campaign of anti-union animus, including unlawful layoffs, constructive discharge, harassment, and unilateral alterations to terms and conditions of employment during the statutory freeze period.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including reinstatement with compensation, restoration of privileges, and union access to employer-convened meetings.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice.

The Board found that while there was a delay, it was adequately explained by the union representative's health problems and difficulties in forming a bargaining committee.

The Board concluded that the union had actively pursued its bargaining mandate and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a supplier of ready-mix concrete, sought relief under sections 82 and 123 of the Labour Relations Act based on statements by union officials that a picket line would be set up at a construction site.

The Board found that the applicant was not an employer in the construction industry but could seek relief under section 82.

However, because no picket line was actually established, no unlawful strike occurred, and the applicant suffered no harm, the Board concluded the application was premature.

The applications were dismissed.