Stephen Wahl

The plaintiff, a cargo handler at Pearson International Airport, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain picketing by the defendant union, which was engaged in a legal strike against a neighbouring employer.

The plaintiff was not a party to the labour dispute but its operations were disrupted.

The court found that the plaintiff met the test for an interlocutory injunction, relying on issue estoppel from a previous injunction granted to the airport authority.

However, the court declined to grant the broader injunction sought by the plaintiff, instead limiting the order to the terms of the existing picketing protocol established in the previous order.

In an addendum to a previous decision allowing the appeal and restoring the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision, the Court of Appeal clarified the timeline for an estoppel period.

Responding to a letter from the respondent's counsel, the court confirmed its intention that the new two-year estoppel period originally set by the OLRB would start again on the date of the court's decision.

The appellant unions appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling.

The Board had admitted a photocopy of the 1958 Sarnia Working Agreement into evidence as a business record and ancient document, finding it created province-wide bargaining rights binding the respondent employer.

The Board also found the unions were estopped from enforcing the agreement for two years due to representations made in 2000.

The Divisional Court ruled the document inadmissible and substituted a permanent estoppel.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court failed to show deference to the Board's evidentiary rulings and remedial discretion, restoring the Board's original decision.

The Union appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision.

The OLRB vice-chair had ruled that he had jurisdiction under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to extend the time for referring a grievance to arbitration, despite the mandatory 14-day time limit in the collective agreement having expired.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, holding that once the time limit expired, the grievance was deemed settled and there was nothing left to refer to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Union's appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court that the OLRB's interpretation of s. 133 was unreasonable and that the OLRB cannot ignore the express mandatory timelines in a collective agreement.

The applicant unions sought judicial review of an interim decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding card-based certification.

The employer had provided lists of employees for two prospective bargaining units with 24 overlapping names.

The unions agreed between themselves on how to allocate the overlapping workers and argued the employer was bound by this agreement.

The Board ruled the employer was not a party to the agreement and ordered the employer to provide an unqualified list.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with its jurisprudence.

The applicant sought judicial review to set aside grievance awards, arguing the arbitrator erred by acting as both mediator and arbitrator and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias during mediation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Labour Relations Act expressly permits an arbitrator to act as a mediator with the parties' consent, which was given here.

The court also held that the arbitrator's tentative opinion expressed during mediation did not meet the high threshold for establishing bias.

The company TCT became insolvent and an interim receiver, KPMG, was appointed.

The order appointing KPMG stated it could not be considered a successor employer and prohibited proceedings against it without leave.

KPMG terminated unionized employees and sold assets to a new company, which hired some employees without union representation.

The union sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to bring a successor employer application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to determine successor employer status, which belongs exclusively to the labour board.

The Court also held that the traditional Mancini test applies to s. 215 leave applications, requiring only a prima facie case, and granted the union leave to proceed.

The union brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that amended a receivership order to protect the receiver from successor employer status and denied the union leave to proceed against the receiver before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the legal issues regarding the relationship between bankruptcy courts and labour boards, and the status of a receiver as a successor employer, were significant to commercial practice and warranted consideration by the appellate court.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the repainting and repair of a water tower by the respondent employer was maintenance work, not work in the construction industry.

The union argued the Board used the wrong definition and denied natural justice by refusing to hear evidence about a different project.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the excluded evidence was irrelevant, meaning there was no denial of natural justice.

The Union applied for judicial review of an arbitration board decision that dismissed its grievances concerning contracting out and refused to issue a single employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board did not deny natural justice by refusing further document production, and that its decisions on the single employer issue and the interpretation of the collective agreement were not patently unreasonable.

During a lawful strike, picketers consistently obstructed the employer's vans from entering and exiting the plant until police arrived.

The employer obtained an interlocutory injunction after police could not guarantee immediate assistance.

The union appealed, arguing the condition precedent in s. 102(3) of the Courts of Justice Act was not met because police eventually provided access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the appeal, finding that reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance had failed to result in an acceptable degree of control.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by striking the term limiting the number of picketers to four, holding that it unreasonably restricted the employees' right of expression.