Lorne A. Richmond

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding party groups.

The plaintiff, EllisDon Residential Inc., sought an injunction against Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd. to resume work and against Defendant Unions for inducing breach of contract and interfering with economic relations.

The defendants argued the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

The court applied the Weber test, finding the essential character of the dispute related to labour relations and the interpretation of collective agreements, falling within the OLRB's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the injunction motion and stayed the action, deferring to the OLRB.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that denied their successor rights application following the merger of two construction companies.

The Board had awarded bargaining rights for formwork to the Carpenters' Union to avoid jurisdictional conflict, as the merged entity intermingled employees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to avoid jurisdictional conflict under section 69(6)(c) of the Labour Relations Act was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting union certification for employees working on a federal nuclear waste remediation project.

The applicant argued that its labour relations were subject to federal jurisdiction because the project involved nuclear substances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was a large construction company performing a temporary contract and was not a federal undertaking itself, nor was it sufficiently integrated into the federal undertaking to trigger derivative federal jurisdiction.

A dissenting judge would have found derivative federal jurisdiction based on the federal regulatory regime governing nuclear substances.

The applicants, trustees of multi-employer pension plans, sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of confidential actuarial valuation reports to a representative of a rival union.

The applicants argued that disclosure would cause harm during the construction industry's 'raiding season'.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and set aside the commissioner's order, finding that the commissioner applied an overly burdensome standard of proof and an overly stringent test for causation of harm under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court held that the applicants only needed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm, which was met given the highly competitive context of union raiding.

The appellants, unionized masonry contractors, appealed an order staying their action against the respondents and denying injunctive relief.

The appellants sought to challenge the legality of a Memorandum of Agreement and collective agreements that prohibited independent contractor arrangements with individual bricklayers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and that the appellants had avenues within the labour relations regime to challenge the agreements.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that allowed a competing union's certification application to proceed despite being filed early.

The applicant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to alter absolute statutory time limits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the issue was not one of true jurisdiction but of statutory interpretation within the Board's core expertise.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the Court held the Board's exercise of discretion under s. 111(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was justified, transparent, and intelligible given the unique factual matrix.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board finding that the union's certification application fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The respondent union argued the application was premature because the employer had other non-constitutional grounds for opposing certification that had not yet been decided.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, proceedings before administrative tribunals should not be fragmented.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the court quashed the application as premature.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions granting union certification in the construction industry.

The employer argued the Board erred by accepting a union membership card from an employee who worked on the application date but signed the card later that day after being laid off.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Board's long-standing practice of not parsing the date of application into units of time of less than a day was consistent with the Labour Relations Act and its purposes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant construction trade unions challenged the constitutionality of s. 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which allows a 'non-construction employer' to terminate collective agreements and bargaining rights in the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the provision violated s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court reversed this decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's ruling, finding that s. 127.2 does not substantially interfere with the process of collective bargaining because employees of non-construction employers can still organize under the general provisions of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its application for certification and a related employer declaration against SNC.

The Board had found that SNC was not the employer of two construction labourers working on an SNC job site.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's determination of the true employer using the York Condominium factors was reasonable and fell squarely within its expertise.

The Court also rejected the union's argument that the Board breached natural justice by suggesting another entity might be the employer, noting the only material issue was whether SNC was the employer.

The applicant union local sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that allowed the parent union to assume jurisdiction over a specific construction project.

The Board had proceeded by way of an expedited consultation process rather than a full hearing, relying on pleadings and oral submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's Rule 41 permitting consultations was not ultra vires, the Board did not breach natural justice or procedural fairness, and its decisions on both procedure and the merits were not patently unreasonable given the specialized labour relations context and the need for expedition.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding trade unions.

The affiliated bargaining agent argued the application was untimely because the applicant served the application on it rather than directly on the employee bargaining agency.

The Board held that in the ICI sector of the construction industry, employees are represented by both the employee bargaining agency and the affiliated bargaining agent.

Therefore, delivery of the application to the affiliated bargaining agent within the prescribed time satisfied the requirements of section 63(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a representation vote in which a majority opposed the union, the Board declared that the responding parties no longer represent the employees.

Thomson Newspapers objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it to be the employer for the purposes of pay equity of employees at the Oshawa Times.

The Tribunal reviewed the relationship between the two entities and concluded that, while the publisher of the Oshawa Times controlled the operation of the newspaper, he did so as an employee of Thomson.

As such he was obliged to carry out Thomson's corporate goals and objectives.

Overriding financial control rested with Thomson as did ultimate authority for compensation practices.

The Tribunal affirmed the Review Officer's order and found Thomson to be the employer.