L.A. Richmond

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions: a default decision finding it violated a collective agreement and awarding damages, and a decision denying reconsideration.

The employer had failed to participate in a related jurisdictional dispute or file a timely response to the grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions were neither procedurally unfair nor unreasonable, as the employer had ample opportunity to participate but chose not to do so until the eve of the damages hearing.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision ordering it to pay $185,000 in liquidated damages for failing to produce documents in a timely manner during a grievance process under a construction industry collective agreement.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness, as the collective agreement mandated strict timelines and specific penalties for non-compliance.

The application was dismissed, save for a mathematical calculation error regarding the exclusion of weekends and holidays, which was remitted to the arbitrator on consent.

The applicants sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying them intervener status in a labour grievance between a union and an employer regarding alleged subcontracting violations.

The applicants argued the grievance would adversely affect their ability to work and supply workers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the arbitrator's finding that the applicants lacked a direct and legal interest in the private dispute resolution process between the union and the employer.

A provincially incorporated contractor providing construction services to federally regulated telecommunications companies sought to challenge a provincial labour relations board's certification of its construction technicians as a provincially regulated bargaining unit.

The contractor argued that its construction technicians performed work vital, essential, or integral to federal undertakings and should therefore be subject to federal labour jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations was not displaced.

The court found that the federal undertaking (Rogers) was not dependent on the contractor's construction technicians, and that the proper focus in derivative jurisdiction analysis is whether the federal undertaking is dependent on the particular employees in question, not whether the work performed is generally important to the federal undertaking.

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 union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting bargaining rights to a competing union.

The applicant argued that a voluntary recognition agreement between the employer and the competing union constituted unlawful employer support under s. 53 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusion that the agreement was a bona fide settlement of an outstanding application, rather than unlawful support, was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant, a former member of the Labourers' Union, sought an order permitting him to make claims against the union's Benefit Trust or a return of his Dollar Bank Balance after being expelled for violating a dual union policy.

He also claimed the trustees breached their fiduciary duties.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant ceased to be a beneficiary upon expulsion, had no right to a distribution of the notional dollar bank account, and that the trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties by adopting or enforcing the dual union policy.

The applicant local unions sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board finding that the international union had just cause to merge them with another local.

The applicants challenged the Board's use of a consultation process rather than a full hearing, and its refusal to order production of a specific report.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's choice of process was within reasonable expectations given its expertise.

Although the Court criticized the Board's failure to order production of the report, it declined to quash the decision, finding the merger was supported by an independent expert's unqualified recommendation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring that the sale of Hydro One shares by the Crown contravened s. 48(1) of the Electricity Act.

Before the appeal was heard, the government withdrew the public offering and enacted new legislation repealing s. 48(1) and expressly authorizing the sale of the shares.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the legal and factual foundation of the dispute had disappeared and that the circumstances did not justify an exception to the general rule against hearing moot appeals.

The applicant union sought to consolidate two files and claimed successorship rights.

The International Union sought intervenor status.

The Board consolidated the files and granted the International Union limited status to intervene solely on the issue of successorship, finding it had a legal interest in the transfer of jurisdiction but no interest in the interpretation of the collective agreement.

The Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen applied under section 154 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to be certified as the exclusive employee bargaining agency for the provincial unit, seeking to oust the International Union from the designated agency.

The Board found that the applicant met the statutory definition of an 'employee bargaining agency' and had standing to apply.

The Board further found that a majority of the affiliated bargaining agents supported the application, and conditionally concluded that they held bargaining rights for a majority of employees, subject to any final representations from the opposing parties.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding party employer breached the provincial collective agreement by applying a maintenance agreement to various electrical work projects at a refinery.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to determine whether eight specific items of work were 'construction' or 'maintenance'.

The Board declined to defer to a prior determination by the General Presidents' Maintenance Committee.

Applying the Master Insulators test, the Board analyzed the context and purpose of each project.

It concluded that seven of the eight items involved additions or enhancements to the systems and were therefore 'construction' work, while one item was 'maintenance'.

The employer was found to have breached the collective agreement with respect to the construction work.