Leonard Marvy

The applicants sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions which found that a 1965 Working Agreement did not confer bargaining rights on them.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court upheld the Board's interpretation that the agreement merely bound the employer to abide by the provisions of the collective agreements, rather than binding the employer to the collective agreements themselves.

The court also dismissed arguments regarding a denial of natural justice due to delay, finding no prejudice was demonstrated.

Both applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Ontario Labour Relations Board, its Vice-chair, and its Registrar discriminated against him on the basis of his Aboriginal status when dismissing his reprisal application.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicative process of a quasi-judicial tribunal does not constitute a service under the Human Rights Code and is protected by adjudicative immunity.

The applicant trade unions sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing their application to declare Cadillac Fairview a related or successor employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board had found that the amalgamation of two corporations did not erode bargaining rights and that there was no sale of a business.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had initially issued a brief decision upholding a union grievance, and later issued supplementary reasons at the union's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act to issue supplementary reasons without reconsidering the decision itself.

The Court found that the doctrine of functus officio applied, and the delivery of supplementary reasons raised a reasonable apprehension of result-driven, after-the-fact reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision denying its request to reconsider a union certification order.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Board did not request further evidence before denying the reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board fully considered the request and the applicant failed to provide reasons for not responding to the initial certification application or evidentiary support for its claims.

The Board's decision was reasonable and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying it as the employer of union members and dismissing its request for reconsideration.

The applicant had failed to respond to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit, later claiming it was not the employer and had ignored the notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decisions were subject to a reasonableness standard of review and that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion in refusing to reconsider the certification despite the applicant's claim that it was not the true employer.

The applicant Union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its grievances.

The Union argued that work paid as maintenance under the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement was actually construction and should have been paid at a higher scale under the Principal Agreement.

The Board found the Union was estopped from relying on the Principal Agreement because its business agent agreed the work would be done under the GPMA.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's application of estoppel, despite section 162 of the Labour Relations Act, was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had dismissed ten applications for certification by the respondent union, finding it was not a construction industry trade union under s. 126(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also made obiter comments regarding s. 15 of the Act.

Because the applicant was successful before the Board in having the certification applications dismissed, the Divisional Court found the application for judicial review to be moot.

Applying the Borowski factors, the Court declined to hear the application, noting there is no public interest in reviewing obiter comments that did not form the ratio of the Board's decision.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The employer brought an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had upheld a union grievance, finding that fire restoration work at a Petro-Canada site was 'construction work' under the Labour Relations Act and governed by the provincial agreement, rather than the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement.

The employer argued the Board erred in its application of the doctrine of estoppel and lacked jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons and that its decision on the nature of the work and the application of estoppel was reasonable.

The union appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board certification order and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

The Divisional Court had found the Board erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the employer's late-filed response.

Before the appeal was heard, the Board reconsidered the matter, accepted the late response, and revoked the certification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the union's appeal as moot, finding no live controversy remained and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case on the merits.

The appellant First Nation enacted its own labour relations code after a union was certified to represent workers at a casino located on its reserve.

The appellant argued that its code displaced the provincial Labour Relations Act based on its aboriginal and treaty rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish an aboriginal practice, custom, or tradition that supported the right to enact a labour relations code.

The Court also held that the Crown did not breach its duty to consult and accommodate, as the appellant's claim was not sufficiently credible and the appellant had taken unilateral action.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an urgent application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a cease and desist order regarding an unlawful strike by the Amalgamated Transit Union that shut down public transit.

The Board Chair held a teleconference hearing at 5:30 a.m. without the Union's participation, granting the order.

Later that day, a Vice-Chair reconsidered the decision, limiting each side's presentation time, and upheld the order.

The Union applied for judicial review, arguing a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion to abridge its procedures and that the urgent circumstances justified the expedited process and limited presentation time.

Following a successful judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, the applicant employer sought costs of $10,000.

The respondent union argued for a lower amount in line with typical labour relations cases, while the Board argued no costs should be awarded against it.

The Divisional Court fixed costs at $4,000 payable by the union, noting that labour relations cases in the court are generally low-cost.

No costs were awarded against the Board as it only addressed the standard of review.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which had ruled that a law firm was not in a conflict of interest and could continue representing the respondents.

The law firm had previously represented the applicant local union before it was placed in trusteeship.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.

Applying the MacDonald Estate test, the Court found the law firm possessed relevant confidential information and there was a risk of prejudice to the former client.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was quashed, and the law firm was ordered to cease acting against its former client.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to certify a union without considering the employer's late-filed response.

The Board had concluded that the word 'shall' in section 128.1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was mandatory, precluding it from considering information filed after the two-day statutory time limit.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.

The Court held that the Board erred in its interpretation, finding that 'shall' in this context is directory and that the Board has the discretion to remedy the breach and consider late-filed information.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring that the applicant and a predecessor school board were a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act and its regulations precluded the Board from making such a declaration and limited the geographic scope of the unions' bargaining rights.

The Divisional Court held that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The majority found that the Board's interpretation of the interplay between the statutes, which preserved its discretion under s. 1(4), was not clearly irrational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the departure of a 'key man' to the applicant company constituted a sale of a business under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the Board's specialized expertise and the strong privative clauses in the Act.

The Court found there was evidence to support the Board's factual findings and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent unions.

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

The union had negotiated mid-term amendments to a collective agreement with Loblaws to address competition from Wal-Mart, without holding a ratification vote by the general membership.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found that the Board's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its conclusion that the union acted fairly and reasonably were not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which declined to use its reconsideration powers under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to consolidate 11 bargaining units into two.

The Divisional Court applied the functional and pragmatic approach, determining the standard of review to be patent unreasonableness due to the presence of a strong privative clause and the Board's specialized expertise.

The Court found that the Board's decision to leave the restructuring of bargaining units to the parties once a collective agreement is in place was rational and consistent with long-standing jurisprudence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions declaring that the applicant was bound by a national collective agreement across all its operations, not just its Toronto district office.

The applicant argued the Board erred in its application of the common law of agency regarding ostensible authority and in its factual finding regarding the scope of the company name on the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision, which involved interpreting a collective agreement in a labour relations context, was subject to a patently unreasonable standard of review and met that standard.