Leonard Marvy

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding a complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation concerning overtime grievances.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Board did not record the proceedings and proceeded by way of consultation rather than a full hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's substantive decisions and remedial orders were reasonable.

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

The Board found that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-unionized contractor, but denied an award of damages because the union suffered no loss, as only a non-union contractor was capable of performing the specialized work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on remedy was owed deference and was not outside the range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, sought judicial review of an OLRB decision dismissing his unfair labour practice complaint for undue delay.

The applicant had previously challenged his termination in 2008 without success.

In 2013, he requested severance pay under the collective agreement, which the NHL denied on the basis that he had forfeited it by bringing the 2008 application.

The applicant then filed a new OLRB complaint alleging the denial was an unfair labour practice.

The OLRB dismissed the complaint, finding it crystallized in 2008.

The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decision unreasonable, as the applicant could not have known with certainty in 2008 that the NHL would deny his severance claim in a manner that potentially contravened the Labour Relations Act.

The decision was quashed and remitted to the Board.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interim order made by the Ontario Labour Relations Board requiring the provision of properly trained security personnel in a forensic psychiatric unit.

The respondents argued that reviewing the interim order before the Board had completed its proceedings would be an inappropriate, fragmented approach.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the application premature as the Board's proceedings were still ongoing and the impugned order was only one aspect of a broader safety regime being considered.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent unions.

The applicant sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for its electricians.

The applicant challenged the Board's use of a 'bright line' test to determine the bargaining unit based on employees working on a Saturday filing date, the Board's finding that a union organizer's conduct did not violate s. 76 of the Labour Relations Act, and the wording of the ballot question.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its unfair labour practice complaint and challenges to a representation vote.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by making adverse credibility findings without holding an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while it is a well-settled principle that adverse credibility findings should not be made without an oral hearing when central to a decision, the credibility findings in this case were irrelevant and easily severable from the determinative issues.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision which held that the OLRB had jurisdiction under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act to determine the date of a strike vote.

The union argued that the union had the exclusive right to set the date and that the OLRB's power to supervise the vote did not include setting the date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable and that the plain meaning of the authority to supervise and manage a vote included the right to set the date.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint against his union without a full hearing.

The applicant alleged the union failed to give him adequate notice of a grievance that ultimately displaced him from his permanent custodian position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by deciding the matter on written submissions, and that its conclusion that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith was reasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that declared it no longer represented the employees of the respondent employer.

The union argued the Board unreasonably dismissed its allegations of employer interference without a hearing, relying on a continuing taint from a prior Board finding of interference three years earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding it was reasonable for the Board to require the union to plead specific, proximate facts of interference rather than relying on the historical taint, especially since the statute does not impose a reverse onus on the employer in these circumstances.

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 union had refused to seek judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld the applicant's termination for insubordination and time theft.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

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 applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing an unfair labour practice complaint.

The union alleged the employer violated the statutory freeze period under s. 86 of the Labour Relations Act by reducing employee benefits after the applicant displaced the incumbent union.

The Board found that the employer's obligation was only to pay premiums to the incumbent union's trust fund, which became impossible upon displacement.

Applying the 'reasonable expectations' test, the Board concluded the employer's substituted benefit plan was reasonably comparable and did not violate s. 86.

The Divisional Court held the Board's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant local unions sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board finding that the international union had just cause to merge them with another local.

The applicants challenged the Board's use of a consultation process rather than a full hearing, and its refusal to order production of a specific report.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's choice of process was within reasonable expectations given its expertise.

Although the Court criticized the Board's failure to order production of the report, it declined to quash the decision, finding the merger was supported by an independent expert's unqualified recommendation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of four decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, including procedural decisions denying an adjournment and change of venue, and a final decision declaring the applicants to be one employer bound to certain collective agreements.

The applicants argued the Board breached natural justice by refusing to adjourn the hearing from Toronto to Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's travel policy reasonable and noting the applicants failed to provide adequate reasons for their non-attendance when invited to do so.

The Court also upheld the Board's document production order.

The applicant union sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that allowed a competing union's certification application to proceed despite being filed early.

The applicant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to alter absolute statutory time limits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the issue was not one of true jurisdiction but of statutory interpretation within the Board's core expertise.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the Court held the Board's exercise of discretion under s. 111(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was justified, transparent, and intelligible given the unique factual matrix.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status because the respondent's washrooms did not have a baby changing station.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as she was able to manage changing her child and was not disadvantaged.

Furthermore, the applicant did not sufficiently communicate her family status-related needs to the respondent to trigger the duty to accommodate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board finding that the union's certification application fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The respondent union argued the application was premature because the employer had other non-constitutional grounds for opposing certification that had not yet been decided.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, proceedings before administrative tribunals should not be fragmented.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the court quashed the application as premature.

EllisDon applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that admitted a photocopy of a 1958 working agreement and found the unions were estopped from enforcing it for only two years.

The Divisional Court held that the OLRB erred in law by admitting the document as a business record or ancient document without assessing its reliability.

Furthermore, the Court found that the OLRB's decision to limit the estoppel to two years was unreasonable, as EllisDon had permanently lost the opportunity to seek a legislative solution.

The Court quashed the OLRB's decision and dismissed the unions' grievances, ruling the estoppel must be permanent.

The applicant, a branch of the United States Department of Defense, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent its civilian employees in Ontario.

The Board had found that the applicant was a separate agency of the foreign state, had waived sovereign immunity, and was engaged in commercial activity.

The Divisional Court quashed the certification, holding that the applicant was an integral part of the U.S. government, had not waived its immunity, and was engaged in sovereign military support activities rather than commercial activities.