Mike McCreary

The applicant union brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit in support of its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The affidavit sought to challenge numerous factual findings made by the Board, alleging they were unreasonable or made without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the strict test that affidavit evidence is only admissible on judicial review in rare and exceptional circumstances to demonstrate a complete absence of evidence on an essential jurisdictional point.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this exacting standard, as the Board had received some evidence on the primary functions in dispute, and the affidavit merely reflected the applicant's counsel's differing notes of the proceedings.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence following two episodes of loss of consciousness.

The Registrar relied on a Medical Advisory Committee recommendation requiring a five-year seizure-free period based on a diagnosis of post-traumatic epilepsy.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant suffered from a seizure disorder secondary to a remote head injury, not epilepsy, and that he had been seizure-free and compliant with medication.

The Tribunal concluded the Applicant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision, ordering annual medical reporting.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying application was brought by the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that HPARB's participation was not necessary to assist the court, as other parties were well-equipped to address the relevant issues.

Furthermore, the court noted that HPARB's proposed submissions were inappropriately adversarial for a quasi-judicial tribunal.

The Labourers referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging that their members were unlawfully laid off by the responding employer for exercising their statutory rights and because a steward was about to testify in a jurisdictional dispute.

The employer and the Carpenters union, who sought to intervene, requested that the grievance be adjourned pending the outcome of an ongoing jurisdictional dispute involving the same parties.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that the validity of the work assignment was a live issue in the grievance and that it made practical sense to await the decision in the jurisdictional dispute.

The issue of the Carpenters' right to intervene was also deferred.

The Board conducted a consultation to determine the arrangements for a representation vote in competing certification applications by UFCW Canada and CAW-Canada for employees at Sobeys.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on December 20, 2001, with a voting constituency of all employees in the Regional Municipality of Durham serving the Sobeys account, subject to certain exclusions.

The ballot will include options for CAW-Canada, District 2A, UFCW Canada, and no union.

The Board directed that part-time and full-time employees vote separately and that disputed employees' ballots be segregated.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the responding party employed non-members for work within the ICI sector.

The intervenor union argued the work, constructing a municipal skateboard park, fell within the roads or heavy engineering sector.

The Board determined that the end use of the project was exclusively recreational and not related to transportation.

Therefore, the Board declared the construction of the skateboard park came within the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

In an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board issued a procedural ruling regarding the order of evidence for challenges to the voters' list.

The Board directed that the applicant call its evidence first regarding three specific individuals, followed by the responding party's evidence.

The Board also set out the procedure for arguing a motion to bifurcate the proceeding.

The applicant union sought a declaration that there had been a sale of a business from Waltex to Shore, or alternatively, that the responding parties were under common direction and control.

The union argued that a 'key man' and core employees transferred from Waltex to Shore.

The Board found that the individual in question was a working foreman, not a key person whose departure would mean the demise of the business.

The Board also found insufficient evidence of common control or direction, as the two businesses were run independently by different brothers.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the employer discriminated against a union steward by not assigning him overtime scaffolding work.

The employer and an intervenor union requested an adjournment pending the outcome of a separate jurisdictional dispute application regarding scaffolding work.

The Board denied the adjournment request, finding that the grievance involved purely a question of collective agreement interpretation and application, as the employer had already assigned the work to members of the applicant union.

The Board ruled that determining the grievance would not require assessing whether the work was correctly assigned.

The applicant brought an application under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board ruled on preliminary issues, finding that the facts asserted did not establish a prima facie case against several responding parties, who were subsequently removed as responding parties and listed as interested parties.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing on the condition that it could be brought back on 24 hours' notice if further violations occurred.

The Board issued directions for the filing of amended and new applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard preliminary issues regarding multiple applications, including certification, termination of bargaining rights, and unfair labour practice complaints involving the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, District 2A, and 1318359 Ontario Limited.

The Board ordered the consolidation of the matters and directed the parties to provide specific documents and particulars to each other.

The Board also set the order of proceedings and scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Board.

The principal of the responding party failed to appear at the hearing despite being personally served with a summons and conduct money.

The Board found that the principal willfully failed to comply with the summons.

The Board ordered a warrant for his arrest to bring him to the next hearing date and directed him to bring the required documents.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The principal of the responding party failed to appear at the hearing despite being personally served with a summons and conduct money.

Finding that the principal was willfully not complying with the summons, the Board ordered that a warrant for his arrest be issued and that he be brought to the next hearing date.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The principal of the responding party failed to appear at the hearing despite being personally served with a summons and conduct money.

Finding that the principal willfully failed to comply with the summons, the Board issued a warrant for his arrest to compel his attendance at the rescheduled hearing and ordered him to produce the required documents.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union and its officials engaged in an unlawful strike.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement in which they agreed that any work refusal or slowdown contrary to the Act is unlawful and that the union would take immediate steps to end such activity.

Based on the consent of the parties, the Board terminated the proceedings.

The applicants filed a termination application to displace the Teamsters as their bargaining agent.

A representation vote was held, and the majority voted against the Teamsters.

The Teamsters alleged that the applicants did not meet the 40% threshold for the application and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging intimidation and coercion by the Labourers union, which supported the applicants.

The Board held that it could not revisit the 40% threshold issue, as it had already been determined without a hearing pursuant to s. 63(8) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case of intimidation or coercion that would vitiate the representation vote.

The termination application was granted.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of 15 employees in the Maintenance and Power Services Department of a poultry processing facility.

The employer objected, arguing that the proposed departmental unit was inappropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, reaffirming its long-standing practice against certifying classification-based or departmental bargaining units due to the high potential for fragmentation and the lack of exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from this practice.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding employer argued that the union never held bargaining rights, or alternatively, that any such rights had been abandoned due to 16 years of inactivity.

The Board found that the employer had granted bargaining rights in 1976 by signing a voluntary recognition agreement.

Furthermore, the Board held that under the province-wide bargaining scheme for the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, as abandonment in the ICI sector requires evidence that all affiliated bargaining agents and the employee bargaining agency have abandoned their rights.

The matter was directed to be relisted to address the employer's estoppel argument.

The applicants brought an application under sections 1(4) and 64 of the Labour Relations Act following the purchase of several farm co-operatives.

The responding trade unions raised a preliminary constitutional objection, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants operated feed mills and seed cleaning mills, which are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada under the Canada Wheat Board Act.

The Board applied the core/subsidiary integration test and found that the retail and other provincial operations were not sufficiently integrated into the federal works to bring the entire enterprise under federal jurisdiction.

The constitutional objection was dismissed, and the Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the merits of the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued the application was barred by a prior voluntary recognition agreement entered into by the parties.

The Board held that while section 5(3) of the Labour Relations Act precludes another trade union from applying for certification within one year of a recognition agreement, it does not prevent the voluntarily recognized union itself from applying for certification.

The Board noted that voluntary recognition does not confer the same statutory rights as certification, such as the right to compel bargaining or access conciliation.

Therefore, the application was not barred.