Robert Gibson

The applicant union sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions finding that it had abandoned its bargaining rights for certain construction employees, thereby allowing a rival union's certification application to proceed.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably departed from precedent by failing to focus on the union's intention to abandon its rights and by ignoring its 2021 negotiating efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board reasonably applied established principles, properly assessed the objective evidence of the applicant's prolonged inactivity, and correctly concluded that the bargaining rights had been abandoned by 2020 and could not be revived by subsequent conduct.

The applicant employer sought judicial review to quash an arbitrator's interim order compelling it to produce documents for a full audit by the respondent union.

The union brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as premature.

The court dismissed the employer's application for judicial review, agreeing with the union that the application was premature because the arbitrator's order was an interim award that did not resolve the grievance on its merits.

The court emphasized that judicial review of interim orders is only available in very narrow "exceptional circumstances" which were not met here, and found no significant harm to the employer from the ordered production and audit.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding a union grievance regarding the payment of weekly room and board allowances under a provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued that a memorandum of agreement settling a strike had superseded the weekly rate with a daily rate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's interpretation, which reconciled the memorandum with the expired collective agreement and applied the principle that clear language is needed to remove a benefit, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that required it to enter into a collective agreement with the respondent employer following a final offer vote under s. 42(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had refused to sign the agreement, arguing it would break a pattern agreement applicable to the non-ICI construction sector.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions unreasonable, holding that the Act does not require a union to object to a final offer vote at the outset, and that the Board unreasonably excluded the existence of a pattern agreement as a justification for refusing to sign.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to a different panel of the Board.

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.

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that dismissed its application for certification of a construction industry bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably refused to order a representation vote and lacked discretion to dismiss the application under s. 128.1(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant did not wish to represent the appropriate province-wide bargaining unit and that determining employee support was impossible due to the passage of time caused by the applicant's litigation strategy.

The Court held the Board reasonably interpreted s. 128.1(13) as conferring discretion to dismiss an unmeritorious application to avoid leaving it in limbo.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision that certified a union and dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration.

The applicant had filed its response to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit via courier, but the OLRB rejected it for failing to comply with a COVID-19 'Notice to Community' requiring electronic filing, despite the OLRB's own forms and rules permitting courier delivery.

The Divisional Court found a breach of procedural fairness, quashed the OLRB's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Board to be decided on its merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an application for certification.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought reconsideration by the Board under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the conflicting Board decisions raised important policy issues regarding the interpretation of its home statute, and that reconsideration offered an adequate alternative remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as premature.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on a Ministerial reference, arguing they were denied procedural fairness because the Minister's question was inaccurately conveyed to them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on a Ministerial reference is an advisory opinion that does not determine legal rights and is therefore not reviewable on procedural fairness grounds.

Furthermore, the court found that the procedural defect did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the applicants had ample opportunity to address the core issues and the outcome would not have been different.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, arguing the Board made procedural errors by issuing a faulty Confirmation of Filing that did not accurately reflect the Minister's question.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court held that the applicants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as they did not request the Board to reconsider its decision under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which would have allowed the Board to address the procedural errors and any resulting prejudice.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his step-daughter over a 38-month period prior to her 16th birthday, and with two forms of sexual exploitation during periods following her 16th birthday.

The Crown proceeded by indictment; the accused elected trial in Ontario Court of Justice and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The case turned on credibility in a classic "she said/he said" scenario.

The court found the complainant credible and the accused's evidence riddled with material inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final custody order respecting an adult child with significant developmental disabilities.

The prior consent order provided for joint decision-making and shared residence with disputes to be resolved by a parenting coordinator with binding authority.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the parenting coordinator process had collapsed due to the responding party’s refusal to cooperate, leaving the parties unable to make joint decisions regarding the child’s care and programming.

Applying the best interests test under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, the court concluded that sole custody with the applicant was necessary to ensure consistent decision-making and access to structured support programs.

Primary residence was granted to the applicant with alternating weekend access to the respondent and shared holidays.