Scott Thompson

This decision addresses an in camera hearing under s. 278.6 of the Criminal Code, following an accused's successful application for production of a complainant's counsellor records.

The court determined which portions of the records should be disclosed to the accused.

It ruled that Crown and defence counsel should be excluded from the in camera hearing, as their participation would be futile without prior access to the records and counter-productive to privacy.

The judge ordered disclosure of relevant excerpts pertaining to the counsellor's role in the complainant's police statements and the identity of the perpetrator, while balancing the complainant's privacy interests.

The accused, C.F., applied under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code for the production of records from a school counsellor concerning the complainant, K.W., in a sexual offence case.

The accused sought production due to a material inconsistency between the complainant's police statements and her preliminary inquiry testimony regarding an act of cunnilingus.

The court found the records likely relevant and their production necessary in the interests of justice, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy rights.

The court ordered the records produced for judicial review.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability against Laird Constructors.

The Tribunal initially intended to defer the matter due to outstanding grievances.

Before the application was served, the applicant withdrew the grievances and requested to add AuRico Gold Inc. as a respondent.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because the grievances were withdrawn, and accepted the amended application naming both Laird Constructors and AuRico Gold Inc. as respondents, directing them to file responses.

The employer brought an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had upheld a union grievance, finding that fire restoration work at a Petro-Canada site was 'construction work' under the Labour Relations Act and governed by the provincial agreement, rather than the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement.

The employer argued the Board erred in its application of the doctrine of estoppel and lacked jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons and that its decision on the nature of the work and the application of estoppel was reasonable.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that work performed by the responding party on a blast furnace was construction work and should have been performed under the ICI provincial agreement.

The responding party and intervenors argued the work was maintenance and properly performed under the General President's Maintenance Agreement.

The Board reviewed the scope of work, which involved extensive replacements and redesigns to bring a decommissioned furnace back into service.

The Board concluded that the totality of the work constituted repair and alteration, making it construction work subject to the ICI agreement.

The matter of damages was remitted to the parties.

The Power Workers' Union (PWU) brought applications for certification to displace the incumbent bargaining agents for construction employees at Ontario Hydro.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board first determined that the PWU must establish it is a 'trade union' within the meaning of section 126 of the Labour Relations Act (a construction trade union) to bring such applications.

After a lengthy hearing, the Board concluded that the PWU is not a construction trade union because it does not have a history of representing construction employees separate and apart from other employees, nor does it possess the established characteristics of a construction trade union.

Consequently, the PWU's applications for certification were dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the union had sufficient membership support for automatic certification, subject to the voluntariness of the petition.

After hearing evidence from the objectors, the union moved for a non-suit.

The Board granted the motion, finding the petition involuntary because it was circulated with the assistance of individuals closely associated with management and in a context where the employer had expressed opposition to the union.

As the petition was given no weight, the Board issued a certificate to the applicant union.

The complainant union (CUPE) alleged that the respondent university violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting the University of Toronto Staff Association (UTSA) from using the university's internal mail service to distribute CUPE organizing materials.

UTSA had historically enjoyed unrestricted access to the mail system.

The university argued that permitting the distribution of union organizing materials would constitute employer support for a trade union, violating sections 13 and 64 of the Act.

The Board held that the university's restriction of an existing practice constituted interference with the union's rights.

The Board declared a violation of section 64 and directed the university to permit UTSA access to the internal mail service in the manner previously enjoyed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the petition represented a voluntary change of heart.

The sole witness for the objectors provided inconsistent and implausible testimony regarding the origination and circulation of the petition.

The Board concluded the petition was unreliable and declined to order a representation vote.

As the union demonstrated membership support in excess of fifty-five percent, interim certification was granted pending the resolution of the bargaining unit status of four individuals.