CITATION: Bailey v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2016 ONSC 8061
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 173/15 DATE: 20161221
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
NORDHEIMER, C. HORKINS and PATTILLO JJ.
BETWEEN:
CARLENE BAILEY Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent
– and –
ONTARIO NURSES’ ASSOCIATION Respondent
Carlene H. Bailey, acting in person Lenonard Marvy, for the Respondent Ontario Labour Relations Board Sandy Donaldson and Sharan K. Basran, for the Respondent Ontario Nurses’ Association
HEARD at Toronto: December 21, 2016
NORDHEIMER J. (orally)
[1] Ms. Bailey seeks judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) that summarily dismissed her complaint that the Ontario Nurses Association (the “ONA”) had failed in their duty to provide her with fair representation.
[2] Ms. Bailey was fired as a nurse from a hospital. The ONA filed a grievance on her behalf. The grievance was eventually settled. Notwithstanding that settlement, the applicant complained to the Board regarding her representation by the ONA. The Board received a series of written submissions from the applicant. The Board then issued its decision, dated April 1, 2014, that dismissed the applicant’s complaint, without the need for a hearing. In so doing, the Board said, at para. 9:
There is nothing to suggest that Ms. Bailey could not simply have refused to be a signatory or that she suffered any incapacity which interfered with her understanding of the nature of a settlement or its terms. In short, there is no information that would lead me to conclude that Ms. Bailey did not consciously and voluntarily enter into the settlement.
[3] The Board was entitled to address the apparent merits of the complaint summarily. The Board was also entitled to deal with the matter without holding a hearing. The applicant was given ample time to file her submissions with respect to the matter and the Board accepted those submissions. The Board simply found that the applicant’s allegations did not demonstrate a prima facie case of a failure by the ONA to properly represent her.
[4] The Board also found that the applicant’s submissions did not provide any proper basis for interfering with the settlement to which she had agreed and which an arbitrator had done his best to ensure was fully implemented. I will say that the exact nature of the applicant’s complaints regarding the settlement are difficult to discern and, to some extent, appear to have expanded before this court from what they were before the Board. I would note, in passing, that the settlement contained a clause releasing the ONA from any claims relating to the matter.
[5] There is nothing in the material before this court that would sustain the applicant’s assertion that she was denied procedural fairness in the manner in which the Board dealt with her application. Insofar as the decision itself is concerned, the standard of review of a decision of the Board is reasonableness. The applicant has failed to show that the Board’s decision is an unreasonable one.
[6] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
COSTS
[7] I have endorsed the Application Record as follows: “This application is dismissed for oral reasons given today. The applicant will pay to the ONA costs fixed at $500 as agreed. The Board does not seek costs.”
NORDHEIMER J.
I agree
C. HORKINS J.
I agree
L.A. PATTILLO J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 21, 2016
Date of Release: December 21, 2016
CITATION: Bailey v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2016 ONSC 8061
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 173/15 DATE: 20161221
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
NORDHEIMER, C. HORKINS and PATTILLO JJ.
BETWEEN:
CARLENE BAILEY Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent
– and –
ONTARIO NURSES’ ASSOCIATION Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORDHEIMER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 21, 2016
Date of Release: December 21, 2016