Sean Fitzpatrick

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use redevelopment on the northern portion of the Dufferin Mall site.

The parties reached a settlement that expanded the Official Plan Amendment to establish a comprehensive planning framework for the entire property.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal conformed to the Official Plan and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The applicant union alleged that the responding party employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 17 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

During negotiations for a closure agreement regarding the National Parts Department warehouse, the employer disclosed the closure but did not specifically state that some warehouse-type work would continue to be performed by other employees at the same location.

The union argued this omission amounted to a misrepresentation that induced it to agree to the closure agreement.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer had provided all necessary information about the closure and was not required to initiate a discussion about the other work, which it considered outside the bargaining unit.

The union's mistaken assumption was its own responsibility, as it could have sought clarification.

The applicant renewed a request for the production of audiotapes and other documents related to the Hospital's workplace harassment investigation.

The Board had previously deferred the request pending evidence of arguable relevance.

After hearing evidence and reviewing written submissions, the Board found that only the Peterson tape was arguably relevant and ordered the Hospital to produce copies of it for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by withdrawing her harassment grievance.

The union had pursued the grievance to the point of appointing a nominee for arbitration but later withdrew it after receiving an independent investigation report and a legal opinion advising the grievance was unlikely to succeed.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, as it had investigated the matter, consulted the applicant, and based its decision on reasonable factors.

The applicants and responding unions made an application under section 27 of the Public Service Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to resolve a dispute regarding which collective agreements apply to the bargaining units.

During the consultation, a significant material fact was found to be in dispute.

The parties agreed to meet and attempt to reach an agreement on the relevant facts.

The Board adjourned the consultation to allow the parties to continue their discussions.

The SEIU filed an unfair labour practice complaint and sought new representation votes under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, alleging irregularities by the Hospital and CUPE prior to the votes.

The Hospital and CUPE brought a motion to dismiss the complaint under s. 23(19) of the Act.

The Board granted the motion, finding that despite any alleged irregularities, the results of the representation votes reflected the true wishes of the majority of the employees in the bargaining units.

The Board appointed CUPE as the bargaining agent for both the Service Full-Time and Service Part-Time units.

Following a hospital restructuring, the successor employer and one union sought a single comprehensive bargaining unit for all service and office/clerical employees.

Two other unions argued for maintaining separate bargaining units for service employees and office/clerical employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that two separate bargaining units were appropriate.

The Board held that while a single unit might be appropriate, the existing separate units had been effective and there was no evidence of labour relations difficulties.

Maintaining the separate units would cause the least disruption to the existing pattern of collective bargaining and was consistent with the purposes of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act.

The applicant hospital, a successor hospital following an amalgamation, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 for a determination of the number and descriptions of bargaining units.

The Board determined that there should be seven bargaining units spanning all three hospital sites.

The Board maintained separate units for stationary engineers, McLean House employees, office and clerical employees, and service employees, but combined part-time and full-time employees into single units for each category.

The applicants filed unfair labour practice complaints against the responding party, a tree seedling nursery.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants were employed in horticulture, which is excluded under section 3(c) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicants argued they were employed in silviculture, an exception to the horticulture exclusion.

After reviewing expert evidence and caselaw, the Board concluded that the employer's primary business was producing tree seedlings for reforestation efforts and that the employees performing that work were employed in silviculture.

Consequently, the Act applied, and the Board had jurisdiction to entertain the applications.

The National Basketball Referees Association applied for a declaration that the National Basketball Association engaged in an unlawful lock-out in Ontario.

The NBA argued that Ontario labour legislation did not apply because the employment relationship was based in the United States and games in Ontario were infrequent.

The Board found that an employment relationship existed in Ontario, the NBRA was a trade union under the Act, and the lock-out was unlawful because the mandatory conciliation process had not been completed.

The Board ordered the NBA to assign NBRA members to games played in Ontario.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.