Richard A. Blair

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) decision regarding a grievance for a poisoned work environment.

The GSB found that the grievor's rights were violated but concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress, stating the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) was the appropriate forum.

The applicant argued the GSB's decision was unreasonable because it simultaneously found the employer's conduct fell within the WSIA's 'employment function' mental stress exclusion while directing the grievor to the WSIA scheme.

The Divisional Court agreed, allowed the application, and remitted the matter back to the same GSB arbitrator to properly determine whether the exclusion applied.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision which held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress arising from workplace bullying and harassment.

The Board concluded that the injury would be compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, relying on previous tribunal decisions that found the acute mental stress limitation unconstitutional.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and declining to consider new arguments regarding the employment function bar and the Occupational Health and Safety Act that were not raised before the Board.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitral award which concluded that physician assistants fell within the scope of the paramedical bargaining unit under the collective agreement.

The hospital argued the arbitrator exceeded his mandate and applied an overly broad definition of 'paramedical'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable, grounded in the ordinary meaning of the word, the parties' practice, and labour jurisprudence, and did not improperly sweep in other excluded employee groups.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award dismissing a grievance for unjust termination and denial of benefits.

The grievor, who was off work on workers' compensation, claimed ongoing benefits from the predecessor employer after the entire business was sold to a successor employer.

The arbitrator held that the predecessor employer had no ongoing liability under the collective agreement except for crystallized entitlements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the successor employer replaced the predecessor employer for ongoing benefits was reasonable and consistent with labour relations jurisprudence.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a policy grievance regarding probationary faculty workload.

The union argued the board's reasons were inadequate and incomprehensible.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the board failed to engage with the union's arguments or explain its conclusion regarding the collective agreement's exception for policy grievances.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitration award was quashed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted board.

The appellant union filed grievances claiming damages for employees' exposure to second-hand smoke in correctional facilities.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for injuries compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, regardless of whether the claim was framed in tort or contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the substance of the claim precludes the Board from awarding damages for compensable injuries.

The applicant university sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it violated the collective agreement by requiring students in an introductory psychology class to mark the work of other students without pay.

The arbitrator concluded that the students performing the marking function were members of the bargaining unit, relying on past grievance settlements that established an agreed interpretation prohibiting unpaid student labour for teaching and evaluation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and consistent with past interpretations.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding a grievance by a social worker (OPSEU member) who claimed permanent status in a Court Support Worker position.

The position had been temporarily vacated by a nurse (ONA member) who took a short-term acting manager role.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because he reversed the onus of proof, ignored compelling evidence that the assignment was temporary, and breached natural justice by failing to give notice of the hearing to the ONA.

The arbitrator's decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a new panel.

The applicant employer applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following the transfer of land ambulance services from three hospitals to the applicant.

The parties agreed there was a sale of part of a business and that a representation vote should be ordered.

The only issue in dispute was the appropriate bargaining unit description.

The employer and SEIU proposed a traditional service unit, while CUPE proposed an ambulance paramedic only unit.

The Board found that the broader service unit proposed by the employer was the more appropriate unit, as it preserved the status quo of the predecessor employers and aligned with the preference for broader-based bargaining structures.

The City of Hamilton brought applications under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 following the amalgamation of various local authorities.

During a consultation, the parties reached agreements to exclude certain bargaining units, including those related to HECFI and specific lodges, from the proceedings.

The Board recorded these agreements, released UFCW and IATSE from the applications, and issued directions for the filing of proposals and scheduling of further consultation dates to determine the remaining bargaining unit configurations.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 1(4) and 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the applicant assumed the exclusive bargaining rights of the responding union with respect to the respondent employer's employees, and the seniority lists were merged.

The Board issued orders to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement and the application was withdrawn with leave.

The Northwest GTA Hospital Corporation applied under the Public Sector Labour Transition Act to resolve outstanding issues prior to ordering representation votes following a hospital amalgamation.

The Board determined the composition of office and clerical units, and declined to maintain separate bargaining units for stationary engineers and Etobicoke paraprofessionals, opting instead for broader service and paramedical/technical units to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board also ordered the employer to provide the unions with employee names and addresses to facilitate access prior to the representation votes.

The applicant filed a third application for termination of bargaining rights shortly after a previous application was dismissed.

The union argued the application was untimely under the newly enacted Interim Rules of Procedure and that the Board should refuse to entertain it due to the multiplicity of applications.

The Board relieved against the strict application of the new rules, finding the application timely.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the application, balancing the employees' right to test union support against the need for stability in the collective bargaining relationship.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further applications by the applicant.

The applicant union filed an application for certification during the open period of the intervenor's expired collective agreement with the responding party employer.

The intervenor subsequently gave notice under the Social Contract Act to revive and extend the expired collective agreement, and argued this retroactively closed the open period and rendered the certification application untimely.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objection, holding that the Social Contract Act does not manifest a clear legislative intent to operate retroactively to interfere with vested representation rights or invalidate an application that was timely when filed.

The Board directed that the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of clerical employees at a medical centre, explicitly excluding registered nurses.

The responding employer argued that the appropriate unit should be an all-employee unit including the nurses.

The Board examined the community of interest and the extensive overlap in duties between the clerical staff and nurses, particularly in reception and patient handling.

The majority concluded that excluding the nurses would likely cause serious labour relations problems, such as jurisdictional disputes, due to the high degree of functional integration.

Finding the proposed unit inappropriate and noting the union lacked sufficient support for the broader all-employee unit, the Board dismissed the application.

A dissenting member would have granted the proposed unit to facilitate access to collective bargaining.

The applicant sought an exemption from paying union dues on religious grounds, arguing that her anti-abortion beliefs conflicted with the union's pro-choice policy.

The trade union opposed the application as untimely under section 47(2) of the Labour Relations Act, since the applicant was not employed when the first collective agreement requiring dues deduction was entered into.

The applicant argued the Human Rights Code should override the Act to prevent constructive discrimination.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it untimely and affirming that the Human Rights Code does not have primacy over the Labour Relations Act.