CITATION: Amodeo v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2010 ONSC 1611
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 147/09
DATE: 20100315
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, LEDERMAN AND DAMBROT JJ.
BETWEEN:
DONALD AMODEO
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR (HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO), ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD, ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION and ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents
In Person
Peter Dailleboust, for the Respondent, Ontario Ministry of Labour
David R. Wright, for the Respondent, OPSEU
Voy Stelmaszynski, for the Respondent, Ontario Labour Relations Board
HEARD at Toronto: March 15, 2010
DAMBROT J. (ORALLY)
[1] Donald Amodeo brings this application to review two decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) dated February 6, 2008 and April 28, 2008. He also requests that the Court “set aside” a Memorandum of Settlement (“MOS”), reached and executed at the Grievance Settlement Board (“GSB”) on April 29, 2008.
[2] Paragraph 7 to 9 of the MOS read as follows:
In consideration of the foregoing, the Grievor and Union release and forever discharge the Employer, and its employees and agents, from all actions, causes of action, claims, grievances, privacy, complaints/requests and demands of every nature and kind arising out of or as a result of the above mentioned grievances, including but not limited to claims arising out of the Human Rights Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Employment Standards Act, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and the Ombudsman’s Act.
The Grievor agrees that these Minutes of Settlement represent a final settlement of all issues between the parties and that he has no further related employment rights or entitlements with the Employer, other than those specifically provided for in this agreement.
The Grievor acknowledges that he fully understands the terms of this settlement and voluntarily accepts its terms after having had the benefit of Union counsel.
[3] The applicant submits that he was forced to go before the GSB when what he desired was a hearing before the OLRB and that he signed the MOS while he was impaired by reason of taking medication. There is no medical evidence before us that would support his claim that he was under diminished capacity at anytime during the proceedings before the GSB. As a result, the MOS is fatal to his claim. In any event, as the MOS is not a decision, we have no jurisdiction to set it aside or otherwise review it.
[4] The Ministry and the Union also submitted that we should not hear the application to review the OLRB decisions because of inordinate delay in bringing and perfecting this application for judicial review. We agree.
[5] There was a delay of eleven months after the MOS was executed in bringing the application and a further seven months delay before it was perfected. This Court has held that applications for judicial review are to be commenced expeditiously and has exercised the power to dismiss an application on the basis of undue delay:
“…the Divisional Court has held on numerous occasions that delay on the part of an applicant of six or more months in the commencement of an application and/or twelve months in the perfection of an application could be serious enough alone to warrant the dismissal of the application”. (Bettes v. Boeing Canada/Dehavilland, [2000] O.J. No. 5413 (Div. Ct.) at para.7).
[6] The length of delay in this case well exceeds any reasonable limit. Furthermore, the record discloses no evidence of any reasonable explanation for the delay and in particular, as I have stated, no medical evidence of incapacity or impairment. Moreover, this Court has stated that judicial review of OLRB decisions should proceed expeditiously because certainty is particularly important in labour disputes (see Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (2003), 172 O.A.C. 156 (Div. Ct.) at para. 10).
[7] Accordingly, the application is dismissed. No costs are demanded and no costs are ordered.
JENNINGS J.
[8] I endorse the back of the Application Record: “The application is dismissed for oral reasons of the Court delivered today. No costs are demanded and none are ordered.”
DAMBROT J.
JENNINGS J.
LEDERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 15, 2010
Date of Release: March 23, 2010
CITATION: Amodeo v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2010 ONSC 1611
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 147/09
DATE: 20100315
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, LEDERMAN AND DAMBROT JJ.
BETWEEN:
DONALD AMODEO
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR (HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO), ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD, ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION and ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 15, 2010
Date of Release: March 23, 2010