Mark Alchuk

The Director appealed an order striking a committal provision from a temporary default order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but confirmed that under s. 41(14) and 41(10) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, a court has the power to make a temporary order for support payments that includes a term directing the imprisonment of the payor upon failure to comply.

The Court emphasized that this power should be exercised cautiously and outlined procedural fairness requirements for unrepresented payors facing potential committal.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying her claim that she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The employer claimed she was terminated for poor attendance and inability to work full-time hours.

The Board found that the employer's reasons were not credible, as the applicant was an excellent worker and the employer had previously accommodated her schedule.

The Board concluded that the termination was tainted by consideration of her pregnancy, violating section 44 of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant was awarded $13,639.00 in compensation, including direct wage loss, loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment, and pain and suffering.

The applicants filed an application against Maplehurst Corrections Centre and the Ministry of Labour.

On agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, to allow the parties to discuss the subject matter at an upcoming meeting.

The applicant appealed under the Employment Standards Act.

At the scheduled hearing, counsel for the applicant and the Ministry of Labour requested an adjournment sine die to allow an officer to consult with the parties and attempt a settlement.

The request was unopposed and granted by the Board.

The Ministry of Labour requested an adjournment of an appeal hearing under the Occupational Health and Safety Act because the Inspector was on a leave of absence and unavailable to testify.

The appellant union opposed the adjournment, citing the serious and ongoing nature of the health and safety issue.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that the Ministry had taken reasonable steps, the request was reasonable, and proceeding would prejudice both the Ministry and the employer.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay finding it liable as a successor employer for vacation pay accrued by employees prior to the bankruptcy of the predecessor employer.

The applicant argued that the bankruptcy terminated the employees by operation of law, crystallizing the vacation pay debt against the bankrupt estate rather than transferring it to the purchaser.

The Adjudicator/Referee held that employees who continued to work were not terminated by operation of law, and their employment was deemed continuous under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant was therefore liable for the accrued vacation pay.

The Order to Pay was confirmed.

During a lengthy hearing involving three related proceedings under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the parties agreed to have the presiding Vice-Chair act as a mediator.

The mediation was agreed to on the condition that all discussions would be privileged and that the Vice-Chair would not be disqualified from continuing to hear and decide the matters if a settlement was not reached.

The Board scheduled a mediation session and set further hearing dates in the event the matters did not settle.

The applicant, an inmate at a federal minimum security prison, participated in a work release program and was employed by the responding party.

He filed a claim for unpaid wages, termination pay, and a minimum wage differential.

An Employment Standards Officer initially refused the claim, finding the applicant was excluded from the Employment Standards Act under section 2(1)(d) of Regulation 325 as an offender performing work under a court order.

The Board set aside the officer's determination, finding the work release was not pursuant to a court order or sentence, but a federal statute, and thus the Act applied.

The Board awarded unpaid wages, termination pay, and the minimum wage differential, subject to the statutory limitation period.

During a complaint alleging a violation of section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the complainant summoned an inspector with the Occupational Health and Safety Branch to testify.

The Ministry of Labour waived the inspector's non-compellability under section 34(2) of the Act, and the Director authorized the inspector to testify under section 34(3).

The respondent objected, arguing that policy considerations against an inspector testifying voluntarily should preclude the testimony.

The Board held that section 34(2) only addresses compellability, not competence, and found the inspector to be a competent witness.