Meg Atkinson

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's refusal to order the respondent employer to restrict the operation of an overhead crane to workers holding a specific mobile crane certificate.

By the time of the hearing, the construction project had concluded, rendering the underlying dispute moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no special circumstances.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Board's interpretation of the occupational health and safety regulations was reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs.

Following the 44th general federal election, Candidate Alejandra Bravo applied for a judicial recount in the electoral district of Davenport.

During the recount, disputes arose regarding whether to open envelopes containing spoiled and unused ballots for several polling stations.

The court issued extemporaneous rulings, allowing some envelopes to be opened where there were significant discrepancies or confusion on the Statements of the Vote, while declining others where the evidence of unreliability was insufficient.

Ultimately, Candidate Bravo terminated the recount pursuant to section 307 of the Canada Elections Act, and the original election results were confirmed.

The applicant, a candidate in the 44th General Election, applied for a judicial recount under section 301 of the Canada Elections Act after losing by 76 votes.

The court found that the threshold for a recount is low and based on a benchmark of accuracy.

Evidence showed numerous errors on the Statements of the Vote, including uncounted unused ballots and numbers that did not balance.

The court granted the application and ordered a judicial recount.

The applicant, a millwright, alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability and engaged in reprisal after he was laid off from a job due to medical restrictions.

The applicant had settled his claims against the employer.

The union requested that the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the union did not participate in a discriminatory work rule or impede the employer's accommodation efforts, as required to establish union liability.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of a nexus between the applicant's disability and the union's conduct, and no facts to support a claim of reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the Tribunal issued an interim decision resolving three procedural requests.

Bruce Power L.P. was granted intervenor status on consent to protect the confidentiality of documents.

Requests by both the applicant and a respondent to have certain witnesses testify by teleconference were granted.

The applicant's request to add internet photographs to his document list was also granted, subject to the respondents' right to challenge their admissibility and reliability at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent union requested an adjournment because it had transferred the file to new counsel who was unavailable for the scheduled dates.

The respondent employer (CFJ) requested an order altering the normal order of proceedings so that the union would cross-examine and call its case first, to accommodate CFJ's out-of-town witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a change of counsel does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

The Tribunal also denied CFJ's request to alter the order of proceedings, directing the parties to confer on witness scheduling instead.

The respondent union requested an order to dismiss the human rights application for disclosing no prima facie case and for delay.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to incidents between May and August 2010 for delay, finding that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for filing the application more than one year after the incidents occurred.