S. C. Raymond

The appellant appealed an inspector's refusal to make an order regarding his removal by the union from the Joint Health and Safety Committee.

The union removed him after he refused to apologize for maligning the worker co-chair, as ordered by a union trial board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because the union is not a 'person' under s. 62(5)(a), the appellant was not exercising a power or duty under the Act when he circulated a memo criticizing the co-chairs, and internal union proceedings are not an 'action or other proceeding' under s. 65(1)(d).

The applicant sought reconsideration of an earlier Board decision that deferred his occupational health and safety complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The applicant argued the Board made factual errors, improperly declined to hear evidence about the Commission's efficacy, erred in its deferral discretion, and violated the Charter and Human Rights Code by deferring a complaint involving race discrimination.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the applicant did not meet the threshold test for reconsideration and that the earlier decision was neither clearly wrong in law nor contrary to Board policy.

The Board also held that deferring a complaint principally about race discrimination to the specialized human rights tribunal did not violate equality rights.

The applicant filed complaints against his union (OPSEU) for breach of the duty of fair representation and against his employer (George Brown College) for reprisals under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The employer and union raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, delay, and duplicate litigation, as the applicant had also filed human rights complaints.

The Board dismissed the duty of fair representation complaint, finding the applicant had elected to pursue his remedies under the OHSA and had unreasonably delayed in raising his concerns regarding a specific grievance.

The Board also dismissed the majority of the OHSA complaint due to unreasonable delay.

The sole remaining issue regarding the applicant's separation from employment was stayed pending the resolution of his concurrent human rights complaints to prevent forum shopping.

The applicant union filed applications for certification for newspaper delivery drivers engaged by the responding party.

The central issue was whether the drivers were dependent contractors (and thus employees under the Labour Relations Act) or independent contractors.

The Board applied the eleven-factor test from Algonquin Tavern, considering the context of the newspaper industry.

The Board found that the drivers had significant independence, including the ability to use substitutes, control their own expenses, and work other jobs.

The Board concluded that the drivers were independent contractors and dismissed the applications for certification.