Lorne Richmond

The plaintiff construction manager sought an urgent hearing for an injunction to prevent the defendant union from allegedly intimidating a masonry contractor's employees into refusing to work.

The developer, Westbank, sought and was granted intervenor status.

The court declined to schedule the injunction motion on an urgent basis, finding that the delay in bringing the action was strategic and the alleged urgency was self-induced.

The parties were directed to schedule a regular motion date.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that assigned scaffolding tending work to the Labourers rather than the Carpenters.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably failed to apply the 'specialty scaffolding contractor' exception from its past jurisprudence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, as the Board had considered the past jurisprudence but concluded the exception did not apply on the facts of this case, given the nature of the work and the overwhelming area practice at the Bruce Power site.

Following an order to merge two local unions into a larger local, the former locals attempted to amend their trust and building corporation documents to distribute assets pro rata to their members rather than transferring them to the merged local.

The court found these actions were taken without authorization, violated the union's constitution, and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty by the trustees and directors.

The court declared the amendments null and void, imposed a constructive trust, and ordered the assets transferred to the merged local.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision certifying a bargaining unit for construction labourers.

The applicants argued the OLRB erred by excluding post-application date evidence regarding the composition of the bargaining unit and by finding that the two individuals working on the application date were their employees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB reasonably applied the statutory framework and its established policy of determining bargaining rights based on the date of application, and reasonably concluded the individuals were employees of the applicants.

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 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 appellant, a construction worker, was expelled from his union local for violating its dual union policy by maintaining membership in a rival union.

Upon expulsion, his coverage under the union's benefit plan was terminated, despite having a positive balance in his notional 'dollar bank account' used to track employer contributions.

The appellant sought an order permitting him to continue making claims against the benefit plan or a cash payment of his notional balance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant ceased to be a beneficiary of the trust upon his expulsion and had no beneficial interest in the funds.

The court also held that the union officials did not breach their fiduciary duties as trustees by adopting and enforcing the dual union policy, as no conflict of interest existed in this context.

Following a motion in which the defendants successfully obtained a stay of the civil action pending determination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing they were entirely successful and had proceeded on an expedited timeline at the insistence of the responding parties.

The responding parties argued the amounts claimed exceeded reasonable expectations and that substantial indemnity costs were inappropriate because the motion concerned jurisdiction and did not determine substantive rights.

Applying the principles under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that successful parties are generally entitled to costs but that the amount must be fair and reasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each group of moving parties.

Unionized masonry contractors commenced a civil action alleging that employer associations and construction unions conspired to prevent them from using independent operator payment arrangements with bricklayers through amendments to provincial collective agreements.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the collective agreements and memorandum of agreement were unlawful, injunctive relief, and damages for economic torts.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Applying the framework from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned labour relations issues including the validity and scope of collective agreements and the relationship between employers and unionized workers.

Because those matters fall within the OLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, the court stayed the action and declined to consider the requested injunctive relief.

The Union sought interim relief to compel the Employer to provide Crown counsel with information that an inspector's discharge was being challenged at arbitration, in the context of a McNeil disclosure letter.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the relief sought had essentially been obtained because the inspector's views, including the fact that his discharge was proceeding to arbitration, had already been put before the Crown.

The unions sought specific orders requiring the employer to immediately commence harmonization of security checks in legacy ministries in accordance with the March 2005 Policy and Guidelines.

The employer had recently provided a new draft Employment Screening Checks Policy and argued that the requested orders would be premature and could conflict with Cabinet's statutory discretion.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to issue the requested orders, finding that the parties were best served by deferring consideration to allow them to discuss the new draft policy and attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution.

The Board remained seized of the matter.

The unions filed a grievance alleging that the Employer failed to implement Phase 3 of the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy in a timely manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board declared that the Employer's failure to commence harmonization by late 2010 was inconsistent with a reasonable interpretation of its obligations under the Policy.

However, because the Employer presented a plan to commence the process during the hearing, the Board declined to order specific timelines for completion, immediate harmonization of re-checks, or formal document production, allowing the Employer's process to unfold while remaining seized of the matter.

The Union and the Association grieved the Employer's decision to subject certain positions within the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and the Ministry of Revenue (MOR) to security checks under the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy.

The Employer argued the checks were necessary due to the positions' access to highly sensitive, confidential, and personal information, including federal tax and benefit databases.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances, finding that while the information accessed by these positions is confidential, it does not constitute 'highly sensitive information and/or assets' as contemplated by the Policy and its Threat Risk Assessment guidelines, which were intended for positions with access to identity documents, cheque writing machines, or information whose misuse could cause massive financial or political harm.

The bargaining agents sought interim relief against the Employer's new practice of requiring employees to provide fingerprints to obtain criminal record information following a 'hit' on a CPIC check.

The change was prompted by a new RCMP directive.

The bargaining agents argued this violated the collective agreement and the agreed-upon Personnel Screening Checks Policy, which stated fingerprints would only be required as a last resort.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted partial interim relief, ordering that employees with a 'hit' not be asked to provide fingerprints, but allowing the Employer to temporarily modify their duties or reassign them without loss of pay pending the resolution of the grievance.

AMAPCEO sought interim relief to prevent the Ministry of Revenue from conducting personnel screening checks on approximately 214 members pending the resolution of a grievance.

The screening checks were initiated to comply with Canada Revenue Agency requirements for accessing taxpayer information.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim order, finding that AMAPCEO raised an arguable case and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the employees' privacy interests, which could not be effectively remedied retroactively, over the Employer's implementation timeline.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order requiring the parties to attempt to identify anonymized examples of relevant documents from training materials.

If unable to do so, the Employer was ordered to identify and disclose anonymized examples from client files, including database screen shots, to be maintained securely to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

The bargaining agents (AMAPCEO and OPSEU) sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from implementing new security checks for employees involved in the Enhanced Driver's Licence program, pending a challenge to the validity of the checks.

The new checks, required by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, included criminal, credit, and CSIS checks.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim relief, finding that the balance of convenience favored the bargaining agents because the incursions on privacy could not be reversed if the unions ultimately prevailed, whereas the public could still use passports to cross the border if the program was delayed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order vacating a previous interim relief order that had directed the employer to refrain from proceeding with its Personnel Security Checks Initiative.

The Board ordered that the Personnel Screening Checks Policy and Operational Guidelines could be implemented by the employer as of January 1, 2006.

The Board remained seized of issues regarding specific phases of the guidelines and redeployment processes, and directed the parties to meet to review the operation of the policy by September 30, 2006.

The union brought an application for interim relief to prohibit the employer from implementing a new employee security checks process, which included police and credit checks, pending the resolution of grievances on the merits.

The employer argued the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order.

The Board rejected the employer's jurisdictional argument, finding it had authority based on established jurisprudence.

Applying the test for interim relief, the Board found the union had established an arguable case that the policy violated the collective agreement, privacy legislation, and the Charter.

The Board concluded the balance of convenience favoured the union, as the potential harm to employees' privacy interests and the consequences of refusing consent or failing a check could not be adequately remedied retroactively.

The application for interim relief was granted.

The Board received a letter from counsel to the OPC, the BACU, and the Ontario Locals, which appeared to be a request for reconsideration.

The Board noted that its decision speaks for itself until amended or reconsidered.

As the letter was not framed as a formal request for reconsideration, the Board concluded there was nothing for it to do until a proper request is before it.