12 total
Motion to set aside order denying admission of new affidavit evidence on judicial review dismissed.
The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order denying its request to file an affidavit as part of its record in an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.
The applicant argued that the affidavit was necessary to show the Board's findings of fact were unreasonable.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law by the motion judge, who was bound by established precedent that restricts the admission of new affidavit evidence on judicial review.
Licence downgrade set aside; commercial driver's single sleep seizure well-controlled by medication.
The appellant, a commercial truck driver, had his commercial driver's licence downgraded from Class DZ to Class G by the Minister of Transportation after suffering a single epileptic seizure in his sleep.
The appellant appealed the decision to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that while the appellant did suffer an epileptic seizure, the condition was well-controlled by medication and he was at low risk for recurrence.
The Tribunal concluded that the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a Class D motor vehicle safely, and set aside the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend the continuation of the hearing.
The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the third day of the hearing on the merits.
The respondents and intervenor attended and requested that the application be dismissed with costs.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the hearing date but chose not to attend, deeming the application abandoned.
The application was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted it has no statutory authority to award costs, but suggested the respondents could bill the applicant and raise the issue if the applicant seeks reconsideration.
Judicial review dismissed; adverse credibility findings made without an oral hearing were not determinative.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its unfair labour practice complaint and challenges to a representation vote.
The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by making adverse credibility findings without holding an oral hearing.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while it is a well-settled principle that adverse credibility findings should not be made without an oral hearing when central to a decision, the credibility findings in this case were irrelevant and easily severable from the determinative issues.
Human rights applications alleging workplace harassment and reprisal dismissed due to lack of credible evidence.
The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal based on his disability (multiple chemical sensitivity).
While accommodation issues were previously addressed in a grievance arbitration, the Tribunal heard allegations that the applicant's Superintendent harassed him after the applicant reported the Superintendent for smoking in the workplace, and that the employer and union failed to investigate.
Applying the Faryna v. Chorny test for credibility, the adjudicator found the applicant's evidence to be unreliable and inconsistent with the preponderance of probabilities.
The applications were dismissed due to a lack of credible evidence supporting the allegations of harassment or the reporting of such harassment to management or the union.
Related employer and sale of business application dismissed; familial relationships alone insufficient to establish common control.
The applicant union sought a declaration that the responding non-union drywall contractors, Elite Construction and Andan Drywall Ltd., were bound to a collective agreement as related employers or successor employers to the unionized Lisi Brothers Construction Limited and Lisi General Construction.
The union argued that the familial relationships between the principals of the companies and the movement of family members constituted a sale of business or common control.
The Board dismissed the application, finding no common control or direction between the union and non-union companies, and concluding that the family members who moved to the non-union companies were not 'key persons' whose departure transferred the business.
Board issued an arrest warrant for a witness who failed to attend a grievance hearing.
The applicant referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
When the responding party failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an arrest warrant for a principal of the responding party.
The Board found that the principal had been properly served with a summons and conduct money, and that his presence and the requested documents were material to the ends of justice.
Pursuant to its authority under the Labour Relations Act, the Board issued an arrest warrant to compel the witness's attendance at the continuation of the hearing.
Arrest warrant issued for responding party's principal who failed to attend hearing after being summoned.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
A principal of the responding party was properly served with a summons and conduct money but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
The applicant requested an arrest warrant.
The Board, exercising its powers under sections 48(12)(d) and 111(2)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, issued a warrant for the arrest of the witness to compel his attendance and the production of required documents at the continuation of the hearing.
Employer ordered to pay $29,826.12 in damages and costs for unpaid benefit contributions in undefended grievance.
The applicant union referred three grievances to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to make required deductions and contributions to various benefit plans.
The responding party did not attend the hearing.
Based on the evidence of the union's business representative, the Board found the responding party was bound by the Carpenters Provincial ICI Collective Agreement and had failed to remit the required contributions.
The Board ordered the responding party to pay $24,544.12 in damages, plus $5,282.00 in costs and fees, for a total of $29,826.12.
Second representation vote ordered because the incumbent union's name was incorrectly listed on the ballot.
The applicant union applied for certification.
The intervenor union objected to the representation vote, arguing that it did not receive proper notice and that its name was incorrectly listed on the ballot.
The Board dismissed the notice argument but agreed that the ballot's use of a truncated name for the intervenor likely confused voters, as the intervenor consistently used a distinct name to identify itself.
Finding that the vote results would not likely reveal the true wishes of the employees, the Board ordered a second representation vote pursuant to section 111(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Board issued an arrest warrant for an employer's principal who failed to attend a grievance hearing.
The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the employer failed to remit employee contributions.
A principal of the responding party was served with a summons to attend the hearing but failed to appear.
The Board found his presence material to the ends of justice and issued a warrant for his arrest, directing police to bring him to the continuation of the hearing and ordering him to produce specified employment and payroll records.
Union's preliminary objection for undue delay dismissed; applicant ordered to provide particulars of harassment allegations.
The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding union breached its duty of fair representation in handling a discharge grievance.
At a consultation, the Board dismissed the union's preliminary objection that the application should be dismissed for undue delay, finding the delay from August 1998 to May 1999 was not excessive.
The Board agreed with the union that the applicant's allegations regarding a history of harassment by the employer were not sufficiently particularized and ordered the applicant to file a precise statement of material facts.
The matter was adjourned for continuation.
