Leonard Marvy

The applicants sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions declaring them a related employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants argued the Board improperly refused an adjournment, erred in relying on an agreement signed by an allegedly incapacitated principal, disregarded evidence, and gave improper legal advice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions on the adjournment and the related employer declaration were reasonable, and that there was no evidence of prejudice from any alleged legal advice.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring it a related employer.

The Board had granted the union's application in default after the applicant failed to file a timely response, and subsequently denied a request for reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant could not rely on its own failure to post notice to employees to claim a breach of procedural fairness.

The Court also held that the Board's refusal to reconsider the default decision was reasonable, as the applicant's prejudice resulted from its own inaction and cavalier attitude toward the Board's process.

A guest at the appellant's resort drowned in an unattended indoor swimming pool.

A Ministry of Labour inspector ordered the resort to report the death under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which requires reporting when a person is killed or critically injured from any cause at a workplace.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Divisional Court upheld the order, finding the pool was a workplace because employees sometimes worked there.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that this interpretation was unreasonable as it would lead to absurd results.

The Court held that s. 51(1) requires a reasonable nexus between the hazard giving rise to the death or injury and a realistic risk to worker safety at the site.

The applicants brought a motion for an interim stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision pending judicial review.

The applicants argued that the Board's decision lacked procedural fairness due to inadequate notice, refusal of an adjournment, improper production orders, and unconstitutional reverse onus provisions.

The court applied the three-part test for an interim stay and found that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case for review.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent union.

The Greater Essex County District School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) ruling.

The OLRB found that the school board's construction management activities fell within the definition of 'construction industry' under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and that receiving compensation for these activities constituted operating a business.

The OLRB also found the school board and other property owners were 'unrelated persons' under the 'non-construction employer' definition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the OLRB's decision reasonable and its reasons sufficient.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that Human Resources Secretaries were not excluded from the bargaining unit under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court held that the Board reasonably interpreted the provision as requiring the confidential capacity to relate to the specific bargaining unit in which the employee would be a member, to avoid a conflict of loyalty.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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 applicants sought judicial review of two decisions of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed applications by the unions to eliminate different rates of progression through the wage grids of comparable male and female job classes, holding that the Pay Equity Act does not require the harmonization of wage grids.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that its interpretation of the Act authorized a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and that the Pay Equity Act does not require or authorize a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a director of a bankrupt Nova Scotia corporation operating in Ontario, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an Order to Pay unpaid wages to Ontario employees.

The applicant argued she was exempt under s. 80(4) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, asserting the provision should be read disjunctively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conjunctive interpretation of s. 80(4) was reasonable and consistent with the remedial purpose of the Act, despite brief contrary pronouncements in prior civil court decisions.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the respondent union was a 'trade union' within the meaning of s. 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the respondent could not be an organization of employees because its constitution allowed independent employee organizations to be members, and that it lacked an identifiable set of rules due to irregularities in the election of its founding officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable and that the founding members could unanimously waive or vary the provisions of the union's constitution.

The applicants, an employee and the employer, sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Minister of Labour regarding the negotiation of a first collective agreement.

The Board had ordered first agreement arbitration, and the Minister subsequently cancelled a scheduled final offer vote.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board did not breach its duty of fairness, the Vice-Chair was not biased, the decision to order arbitration was reasonable, and the Minister had the jurisdiction to cancel the vote.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its application for certification and a related employer declaration against SNC.

The Board had found that SNC was not the employer of two construction labourers working on an SNC job site.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's determination of the true employer using the York Condominium factors was reasonable and fell squarely within its expertise.

The Court also rejected the union's argument that the Board breached natural justice by suggesting another entity might be the employer, noting the only material issue was whether SNC was the employer.

The applicant union sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board approving a settlement between a rival union and the employers.

The settlement declared two drugstore chains to be related employers and granted the rival union sole bargaining rights for all employees of the non-unionized chain in Ontario, including the Ottawa region where the applicant traditionally represented employees of the unionized chain.

The applicant was not given notice of the settlement or the underlying applications.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by unreasonably requiring the applicant to already represent employees of the non-unionized chain to be entitled to notice.

The Court held that the applicant was significantly affected by the decision and had a right to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) regarding its adjudication of her case and the lack of diaper changing facilities at its premises.

The OLRB requested that the application be dismissed based on judicial immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application relating to the OLRB's adjudicative actions, finding that judicial immunity shields adjudicators from such claims.

The allegation regarding diaper changing facilities was allowed to continue.

The applicant's request for production of the OLRB file was dismissed as moot and premature.

The Equal Pay Coalition brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a judicial review of a decision by the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The underlying application concerned whether the employer failed to maintain compensation practices providing for pay equity.

The employer opposed the intervention, arguing the Coalition would not make a useful contribution and would duplicate the union's submissions.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding the Coalition could bring a broader perspective and constructive contribution to the issues, particularly regarding international conventions and the relationship between the Pay Equity Act and the Human Rights Code.

The intervention was granted subject to strict limits on the Coalition's participation.

The applicant resort sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's order.

The order required the resort to report the drowning of a guest in an unsupervised swimming pool under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that 'person' includes non-workers and that the swimming pool was a 'workplace' because workers perform duties there, even if none were present during the incident.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his union (OSSTF) and the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested early dismissal on several grounds, including judicial immunity and delay.

The Tribunal found that the claims against the OLRB were barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, as they challenged an adjudicative decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the application against both respondents was filed beyond the one-year limitation period set out in section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring the applicant and Metro Waste Paper Recovery Inc. to be related employers under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued the Board erred by applying s. 1(4) without first determining the 'true' employer and by exercising its discretion without identifying labour relations mischief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, fact-driven, and within its specialized expertise.

The Board properly identified that a single employer declaration would undermine collective bargaining rights and create an unviable bargaining structure.

The applicant employee sought a stay of a first contract arbitration ordered by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, pending a judicial review of the Board's and Minister of Labour's decisions.

The applicant argued that the Board and Minister breached the employees' rights to natural justice and procedural fairness by not providing notice or an opportunity to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the mere imposition of a collective agreement pending the judicial review would not exacerbate the alleged harm.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Labour Arbitrator's decision interpreting a collective agreement provision on protective clothing.

The employer required metatarsal safety boots, which the union argued constituted an 'exceptional' working condition obligating the employer to provide them.

The Arbitrator found the requirement was merely an enhanced safety policy, not an exceptional working condition.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Dunsmuir, the Divisional Court held that the Arbitrator's contextual interpretation fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.