Leonard Marvy

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing his complaint against his union for failing to advance his grievance to arbitration, and denying reconsideration.

The OLRB had dismissed the complaint due to a 16-year delay and prejudice to the respondents, rejecting the applicant's medical explanation.

The Divisional Court found the OLRB's decisions were not patently unreasonable and dismissed the applicant's allegations of bias and Charter discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay compensation to an employee terminated shortly after returning from maternity leave.

The applicant argued the employee had quit and alleged procedural unfairness in the investigation and hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the Board's factual findings and decision to award compensation were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The employee filed a reprisal complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging he was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns.

The employer subsequently brought a motion asking the Board to state a case for contempt to the Divisional Court, alleging the employee improperly distributed documents.

The Board consolidated the two proceedings over the employee's objection.

The employee did not testify, and the Board dismissed both the reprisal complaint and the contempt motion.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding the consolidation breached the employee's right to a fair hearing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the consolidation was not patently unreasonable and did not breach the duty of fairness, as the evidence would have been admissible in the reprisal complaint regardless, and the employee was not 'charged with an offence' under section 11 of the Charter during the Board stage of the contempt proceedings.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision finding it bound by a provincial collective agreement with the respondent union.

The OLRB had determined that a 1998 memorandum of agreement signed by the employer ratified earlier agreements and waived any right to challenge their validity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the OLRB's determination of union representation rights fell within its specialized jurisdiction and was protected by privative clauses.

Applying the patently unreasonable standard of review, the court found no basis to interfere with the OLRB's decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the validity of a collective agreement under section 53.

The applicant argued the Board was required to declare the agreement invalid for all purposes, not just for the two certification applications before it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had jurisdiction to restrict its remedy to the applications before it and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent union.

The employer, Great Blue Heron Gaming Company, and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation brought motions to stay a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) pending judicial review.

The OLRB had determined that the Ontario Labour Relations Act applied to the employer's casino operations on the reserve, rejecting the First Nation's argument that its own Labour Code applied pursuant to aboriginal rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay motions, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing collective bargaining to proceed for the 800 employees who had voted for union representation over a year prior.

The applicant sought judicial review of a 1997 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints against his union under sections 74 and 76 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the four-and-a-half-year delay in bringing the application was undue and inadequately explained.

Furthermore, applying the patent unreasonableness standard of review, the court held that the Board's conclusion that the union had not acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant also failed to exhaust alternative remedies regarding the section 76 claim.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his reprisal complaint against his employer, the TTC.

The Board had consolidated the hearing of the applicant's reprisal complaint with a motion brought by the TTC to state a case for contempt against the applicant.

The Divisional Court held that consolidating the two proceedings violated the principles of fundamental justice and procedural fairness, as it forced the applicant to defend against quasi-criminal contempt allegations while pursuing his reprisal claim, leading to adverse inferences when he chose not to testify.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to a differently-constituted panel.

The applicant employees sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing their claim for statutory holiday pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The employees commenced a lawful strike on July 4, the first scheduled workday after the Canada Day holiday.

The Board found they were disqualified from holiday pay because they failed to work their scheduled day of work following the public holiday.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's purposive interpretation of the Act was supported by a tenable explanation.

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 applicant, an Employment Standards Officer, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision setting aside an order that the employer pay an employee for constructive dismissal.

The employee, after 16 years, was moved to a lower-paying, more physically demanding job due to downsizing.

After six days, he quit due to back problems caused by the new work.

The OLRB found he quit and was therefore not constructively dismissed.

The Divisional Court held this decision was unreasonable, as the employee was clearly constructively dismissed and did not waive his rights by attempting the new job for six days.

The OLRB decision was set aside.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to comply with Memoranda of Settlement requiring retroactive wage adjustments to be paid as soon as reasonably possible.

At the hearing, the Employer requested an adjournment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the adjournment motion and scheduled further hearing dates to proceed with the matter.

The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO) filed a policy grievance asserting that the Employer, Management Board Secretariat, failed to include certain employees under the recognition clause of their collective agreement, claiming AMAPCEO is a 'tag end' unit.

The Employer opposed the grievance and argued that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) should be granted third party status because the determination of the grievance could affect OPSEU's bargaining rights.

OPSEU sought status, while AMAPCEO opposed it.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted OPSEU third party status, finding that the fundamental question of whether AMAPCEO is a tag end unit directly implicates the scope of OPSEU's bargaining units, and natural justice requires OPSEU's participation.

OPSEU's intervention was made conditional on its agreement to be bound by the result of the proceedings.

The appellant appealed an order of the Divisional Court.

The appeal was heard together with a companion appeal involving the City of Toronto and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

For the reasons provided in the companion appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal with costs.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of six unclassified employees alleging the employer failed to convert them to the classified service.

The employer argued the grievance was inarbitrable due to res judicata, as the identical issue had been decided in a previous policy grievance which dismissed the claim for conversion of these specific employees.

The arbitrator agreed that the doctrine of res judicata applied, noting the previous decision was final and binding.

The grievance was dismissed.

The respondent, a public servant, was released from his employment when his position was declared surplus under s. 22(4) of the Public Service Act.

He brought an action for wrongful dismissal in the Superior Court of Justice, alleging bad faith.

The appellant employer brought a motion to dismiss the action, arguing the Public Services Grievance Board had exclusive jurisdiction, or alternatively, that the court should defer to the Board.

The motions judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the Board and the courts had concurrent jurisdiction, the courts should not defer to the Board because the statutory grievance procedure was not mandatory and did not explicitly abrogate the employee's right to access the courts for breach of contract.

The applicant union filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act to enforce a written settlement regarding the contracting out of offender transportation services.

The responding party employer argued that the settlement did not apply to community escort services at a newly built, privately operated correctional facility.

The Board found that the settlement's language regarding offender transportation services was unqualified and encompassed community escorts at all facilities, including the new one.

The Board declared that the employer violated the settlement and ordered it to amend its Request for Qualifications to retain community escort work for bargaining unit members.

The applicant union and responding Crown sought a determination from the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding which services involving court administration and Y2K preparation were 'essential services' under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board held that the administration of the courts must continue without disruption during a strike or lock-out, and identified specific court personnel whose roles constitute essential services.

Regarding Y2K preparation, the Board ruled that essentiality requires a project-by-project assessment, directing the parties to negotiate specific projects and allowing the Crown to reapply before a strike or lock-out if necessary.

The union applied to the Board for determinations regarding unresolved issues in negotiating an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to prohibit the employer from using replacement workers during a strike or lock-out, given the statutory amendments in section 41.1.

However, the Board ordered the parties to negotiate in good faith regarding the terms and conditions of employment for essential service workers.

The Board also directed the parties to negotiate protocols for situations where a designated essential service worker is absent or exercises the right to refuse unsafe work.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging non-performance of a settlement agreement.

The agreement provided for an $8,000 payment less statutory deductions.

The grievor argued that the payment should be treated as pensionable earnings and that pension deductions should not have been made from the portion designated for legal fees.

The Employer conceded administrative errors regarding deductions from the legal fees portion and a pension deduction from the balance, owing the grievor $658.23.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding the settlement agreement's language clear and unambiguous, with no requirement to treat the payment as pensionable earnings.