Leonard P. Kavanaugh

The appellant was terminated for cause after making violent threats to fellow employees.

He appealed, arguing his conduct was influenced by a mental disability and his termination violated the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the employer was unaware of the disability at the time of termination and fired him solely for workplace violence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the termination for just cause was upheld.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.

The applicant advised that her Association was not proceeding with the grievance.

As the respondent did not dispute this, the deferral request was dismissed and the Tribunal directed that the application be processed in the normal course.

The Greater Essex County District School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) ruling.

The OLRB found that the school board's construction management activities fell within the definition of 'construction industry' under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and that receiving compensation for these activities constituted operating a business.

The OLRB also found the school board and other property owners were 'unrelated persons' under the 'non-construction employer' definition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the OLRB's decision reasonable and its reasons sufficient.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that Human Resources Secretaries were not excluded from the bargaining unit under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court held that the Board reasonably interpreted the provision as requiring the confidential capacity to relate to the specific bargaining unit in which the employee would be a member, to avoid a conflict of loyalty.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Union appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision.

The OLRB vice-chair had ruled that he had jurisdiction under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to extend the time for referring a grievance to arbitration, despite the mandatory 14-day time limit in the collective agreement having expired.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, holding that once the time limit expired, the grievance was deemed settled and there was nothing left to refer to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Union's appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court that the OLRB's interpretation of s. 133 was unreasonable and that the OLRB cannot ignore the express mandatory timelines in a collective agreement.

The applicant School Board sought judicial review of two OLRB decisions that allowed a union to proceed with a construction grievance despite referring it to arbitration four months past the collective agreement's 14-day deadline.

The OLRB vice-chair had ruled the timelines were directory and that the OLRB had broad discretion under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act to extend them.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions, holding that the collective agreement's timelines were mandatory and that neither s. 48(16) nor s. 133 of the Act granted the OLRB jurisdiction to extend the time for referring a grievance to arbitration.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision interpreting a regulation under the Education Act regarding teacher performance appraisals.

The arbitrator found that the regulation did not provide principals with unfettered discretion to conduct extra appraisals, and that being new to a school or division did not constitute 'circumstances' relating to performance under s.6(1).

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that the collective agreement obliged the board to pay a 6-week 'top-up' to educational support staff on pregnancy leave, even if the birth occurred during the summer layoff period when they were not receiving regular wages.

The Divisional Court (majority) allowed the application and quashed the award, finding that the arbitrator unreasonably relied on arbitral jurisprudence regarding teachers as a 'backdrop' when the language of the collective agreement was clear and unambiguous.

The dissenting judge would have upheld the arbitrator's decision as reasonable.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring that the applicant and a predecessor school board were a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act and its regulations precluded the Board from making such a declaration and limited the geographic scope of the unions' bargaining rights.

The Divisional Court held that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The majority found that the Board's interpretation of the interplay between the statutes, which preserved its discretion under s. 1(4), was not clearly irrational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the labour relations of Transit Windsor fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction, following the union's request for a conciliation officer.

Transit Windsor operates a municipal transit system but also runs a regular and continuous extra-provincial bus service to Detroit, Michigan.

Applying constitutional principles, the Board determined that the extra-provincial services, though comprising only 3% of total working hours, constituted a continuous and regular part of an indivisible undertaking.

Consequently, the Board advised the Minister that the labour relations between the parties fall within federal jurisdiction.

Following the dismissal of a human rights complaint for abuse of process without a hearing on the merits, the respondents brought a motion for costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry held that it had jurisdiction to award costs despite the lack of a merits hearing, as a dismissal for abuse of process satisfies the statutory condition precedent.

The Board found no bad faith by the Commission but concluded that the abnormal nature of the preliminary proceedings caused undue financial hardship to both respondents.

However, noting that the separate representation of the respondents was wasteful given their common interests, the Board awarded only one set of costs, divided equally between them, totalling $8,000 each.

The respondents moved to dismiss or permanently stay a human rights complaint on the grounds of abuse of process, excessive delay, and lack of disclosure.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the investigating officer's bias, the five-year delay, and the Commission's restricted disclosure policy might not individually warrant dismissal, their combined effect seriously prejudiced the respondents' ability to prepare their case.

The complaint was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion to adjourn the hearing before the Board of Inquiry pending their applications for judicial review.

The respondents argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to decide the legal and Charter issues raised in their applications.

The Commission opposed the adjournment, arguing that the Board should decide the issues at first instance.

The Board found that while some issues were appropriate for court determination, the balance of convenience and the public policy of the Human Rights Code requiring expeditious proceedings weighed against granting an adjournment.

The motion for adjournment was denied.

The employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether a librarian exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board used this case to alter its policy regarding the scope of duties and responsibilities examinations, deciding it would no longer automatically restrict such inquiries to 'changes' in duties but would permit full examinations where a question as to status arises.

On the merits, the majority found that the librarian exercised effective control over the library, including making effective recommendations on automation, staffing, and hours, and had supervisory conflicts with bargaining unit staff.

The Board concluded she exercised managerial functions within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) and granted the application.

The complainant alleged she was refused a full-time position as a Porter at the respondent hospital because of her sex, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The hospital maintained separate job classifications for Porters (historically male) and Maids (historically female).

The Board of Inquiry found that while a prima facie case of discrimination was established, the hospital successfully rebutted it by showing that the hiring decision was based on the neutral criterion of the applicants' initial dates of hire as relief workers.

The two male applicants hired had earlier start dates than the complainant.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a section 89 complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his discharge grievance without notifying him.

The complaint was filed over three years after the grievance was withdrawn.

The complainant attributed the delay to incorrect advice from his legal counsel, who told him to await the outcome of his criminal proceedings and a similar arbitration involving another employee.

The Board declined to inquire into the complaint, finding that the extreme delay was unjustified and that the respondents, who were not responsible for the delay, would suffer significant prejudice if the matter proceeded.