Leonard Marvy

The applicant, a provincially incorporated company that installs and maintains fibre optic cable for telecommunications networks, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying its bargaining unit under provincial law.

The applicant argued its operations were vital, essential, or integral to federally regulated telecommunications companies and thus subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the applicant's work was highly integrated with and integral to the ongoing operations of federal telecommunications undertakings.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the OLRB decision was quashed.

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 applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his claim that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant alleged bias and bad faith by a union representative who refused to seek judicial review of a dismissed grievance.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision reasonable, noting no evidence of bias or bad faith.

The court also dismissed allegations of procedural fairness and bias against the Board Vice-Chair, finding the consultation process was permitted under the Labour Relations Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the union.

The employer sought an interim stay of Ontario Labour Relations Board orders that found certain franchisees to be dependent contractors, pending an application for judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the judicial review application was premature as the certification process was ongoing.

The court also held that the employer failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged harms were speculative, and the balance of convenience favoured the union due to the lengthy delays already experienced in the certification process.

The applicants sought to stay a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board pending judicial review.

The Board had certified the respondent union, finding the applicants were the true employer of construction labourers on the application date, and had refused to admit post-application evidence regarding the workers' roles.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, holding that the 'strong prima facie case' test applied and that the applicants failed to meet this threshold, as the Board's refusal to admit the evidence was a valid exercise of its statutory discretion rather than a denial of natural justice.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) that adjourned an appeal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature.

The court held that the OLRB's decision was an interlocutory adjournment and did not constitute a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of an interim administrative decision.

On an application for judicial review, a preliminary issue arose regarding the admissibility of two affidavits filed by the applicants containing evidence that was not before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents objected to the admissibility of the affidavits, but no formal motion to strike or for leave to introduce the evidence had been brought.

The Divisional Court held that the onus is on the party seeking to file fresh evidence to bring a motion for leave in advance of the application.

The court adjourned the matter to permit the applicants to bring such a motion.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding a work jurisdiction dispute over exterior concrete formwork at a hospital construction project.

The Board had upheld the employer's assignment of the work to a composite crew of Carpenters and Labourers, finding that the Labourers' collective agreement did not explicitly claim the disputed work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that the Board was not bound to follow its prior decisions where the circumstances or arguments differed.

The applicant moved to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing its application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought to quash an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding the respondent was an employee, not an independent contractor, and awarding unpaid wages.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test from Chiu and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to seek judicial review, it failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, considering the merits of the application and the prejudice to the respondent, the justice of the case did not require granting an extension.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision that dismissed its application for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had refused to allow the union to amend an incorrect application filing date, finding that the amendment would cause material prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's discretionary decision to relieve from compliance with its rules was reasonable and entitled to deference, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a motions judge in a judicial review proceeding arising from an employment dispute with Tim Hortons Inc. The applicant argued that his wife should be added as a party, that the record of proceedings was incomplete, and that the respondents' facta should be struck.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error by the motions judge.

The court confirmed that the applicant's wife was not a proper party to the employment litigation, the record of proceedings was complete, and there was no basis to strike the facta or find a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, Myriam Michail, sought leave from the Superior Court of Justice to bring an application for judicial review of an arbitration award and an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, along with a constitutional challenge.

Ordinarily, such applications are heard by the Divisional Court.

The applicant argued urgency due to protracted proceedings, health issues, inability to travel, and lack of income.

The court, while acknowledging the applicant's subjective distress, found that the objective criteria for urgency and a likely failure of justice under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act were not met.

The court emphasized the complexity of the issues, the need for a three-justice panel (Divisional Court's expertise), and the availability of alternative arrangements like video conferencing.

The motion for leave was dismissed, and the judicial review application was transferred to the Divisional Court.

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 applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing its application to review orders to pay unpaid wages.

The Board dismissed the application because it was filed out of time and the applicant failed to pay the ordered amounts in trust.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's refusal to grant an extension of time was reasonable, noting the urgency inherent in the payment of wages to employees.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring them to be a single employer bound by a collective agreement and liable for damages.

The applicants argued procedural unfairness and challenged the Board's earlier certification and grievance decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it to be an improper collateral attack on previous Board decisions.

The Court held that the Board's procedures were fair and its calculation of damages, based on established principles for breaches of union security provisions in the construction industry, was reasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a competing union to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondent construction company.

The Board had determined that the applicant's existing collective agreement did not cover carpenters and carpenters' apprentices, effectively ending the applicant's intervention in the certification application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and correct based on the plain meaning of the agreement's recognition and jurisdiction clauses.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a certification vote for part-time employees at Ontario community colleges.

The Board had to interpret the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 to determine which employees would be 'substantially effected' by the vote and whether the employee group was 'substantially representative' given the fluctuating workforce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute and application of labour relations principles was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that reinstated an employee terminated shortly after participating in a union organizing drive.

The Board found the employer failed to prove the termination was free of anti-union animus.

On judicial review, the employer argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit new evidence of poor job performance at the hearing, and that its credibility findings were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's refusal to admit late evidence accorded with its rules and procedural fairness, and that its findings of fact and credibility were reasonable and well-supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union and refusing reconsideration.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Board failed to contact it by telephone, and that the Board's finding regarding delivery of the certification application was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the procedural fairness argument was not raised before the Board and the Board's decision on delivery was reasonable based on the evidence.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent union.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a rival union.

The applicant argued the Board breached natural justice by denying its request for production of documents related to alleged employer support for the rival union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's denial of the production request was an exercise of its statutory discretion under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, not an issue of natural justice.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the applicant had not established a foundation for its case and was improperly seeking production to determine if it had one.