Matthew Langer

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding it engaged in an unlawful reprisal by terminating an employee who raised health and safety concerns.

The employer argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board limited witness testimony during a consultation and proceeded with a remedy hearing in the employer's absence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's procedures were fair and in accordance with its rules, and its conclusion that the termination was an unlawful reprisal was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union due to extreme delay.

The applicant had waited 32 months after the union withdrew his grievances before filing the complaint, having pursued parallel proceedings at the Human Rights Tribunal and Superior Court in the interim.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the delay was excessive, the explanation insufficient, and the prejudice to the union significant.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that allowed the respondent's counterclaim for damages arising from a workplace assault and permitted the respondent to add its director as a party.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge erred in holding the counterclaim was not statute-barred, as the limitation period began when the injury occurred, not when its full extent was known.

However, the court upheld the decision because the trial judge properly allowed the director to be added and correctly applied the doctrine of equitable set-off, which provides a complete defence to a statutory limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a former bus driver, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily related to personal issues and a non-compensable employer investigation (the 'Apple incident'), rather than earlier workplace assaults.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decisions to deny benefits and refuse reconsideration were reasonable, and that the Tribunal provided adequate reasons and appropriately weighed the medical evidence.