Gooden v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2018 ONSC 1760
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 556/17
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, PARAYESKI and MATHESON JJ.
BETWEEN:
REUBEN GOODEN
Applicant
Reuben Gooden, acting in person
– and –
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD, THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2723
Respondents
Aaron Hart, for the Respondent, Ontario Labour Relations Board Jane Gooding, for the Respondent, City of Burlington Devon Paul, for the Respondent, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2723
HEARD at Toronto: March 14, 2018
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J. (Orally)
1The applicant seeks to judicially review three decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”).
2He claims that he has been the victim of false allegations of sexual harassment that led to the termination of his employment with the City of Burlington (the “City”) in February 2016, and he seeks vindication and compensation and wants his job back. He also states that the Board erred in focusing only on the Minutes of Settlement dated June 30, 2016 made between the City, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2723 (the “Union”) and himself which resolved his grievance, substituted a letter of resignation for the letter of termination and required the City to pay him compensation.
3The Court’s role on judicial review is not to determine the merits of the underlying allegations of sexual harassment, which is essentially what the applicant is asking today. The Court’s role, on judicial review of a decision of the Board, is to determine whether the Board reached an unreasonable decision or whether the Board denied the applicant procedural fairness.
4In Decisions 1113-16U and 1114-16U, dated November 21, 2016, the Board dismissed the applicant’s unfair labour practice complaints against the City and the Union, as well as his complaint that the Union had violated its duty of fair representation. The Board found that the applicant had not shown a prima facie case, and it would not serve any labour relations purpose to proceed with the applications, given that the City, the Union and the applicant had entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve the applicant’s termination grievance in June, 2016.
5The Board subsequently denied three requests for reconsideration, most recently on August 11, 2017. In that third reconsideration, the Board addressed another issue raised before the Court today - that is, whether the Board should have taken into account a recent arbitration decision involving the woman who was a complainant against the applicant. The Board reviewed the arbitration decision and concluded that there was no basis to reconsider the November, 2016 decision. The Board also addressed the submission that the applicant was stressed when he entered the settlement and concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim that he did not have the capacity to understand the settlement.
6In Decision 1213-17U, the Board rejected a new application seeking consent to prosecute the City and the Union, based upon essentially the same allegations that led to the 2016 applications.
7With respect to the present application for judicial review, the applicant has provided no factual basis to support his allegation that the Board denied him procedural fairness.
8Further, the decisions of the Board were reasonable. The Board carefully explained why the 2016 applications were dismissed, given the failure to make out a prima facie case of the complaints of unfair labour practices and a violation of the duty of fair representation. The Board reasonably found the settlement valid and the conduct of the Union appropriate in the circumstances. Finally, the Board reasonably rejected the 2017 application for consent to prosecute on the basis that the application was an abuse of process.
9As observed in the August 11, 2017 Board decision, it does appear that the applicant is dissatisfied with the settlement and regrets his decision not to pursue his grievance further. However, there is no basis for intervention by this Court.
10Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
11I have endorsed the Application Record as follows: “This Application is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today. The respondents do not seek costs.”
SWINTON J.
I agree
PARAYESKI J.
I agree
MATHESON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 14, 2018
Date of Release: March 15, 2018
CITATION: Gooden v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2018 ONSC 1760
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 556/17
DATE: 20180314
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, PARAYESKI and MATHESON JJ.
BETWEEN:
REUBEN GOODEN
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD, THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2723
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 14, 2018
Date of Release: March 15, 2018