2038-00-U Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 506, Applicant v. Teperman and Sons (Canada) Limited, Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 17, 2000
1This is an application to enforce the terms of a settlement pursuant to section 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, ch.1. The responding party has filed a response. The applicant asks that the Board review the response and conclude that it raises no arguable defence and grant the relief sought.
2The responding party’s ‘defence’ relates to events occurring after the execution of the Minutes of Settlement. The assertions made by the responding party do not appear to provide a basis for refusing to enforce the settlement. The only question is whether the Board has the authority to dispense with the hearing and render a decision on the basis of the material filed.
3The applicant cites section 110(16) which provides:
110.(16) The Board shall determine its own practice and procedure but shall give full opportunity to the parties to any proceedings to present their evidence and to make their submissions.
However, this section is followed by section 110 (17) which provides:
110.(17) The chair may make rules governing the Board's practice and procedure and the exercise of its powers and prescribing such forms as the chair considers advisable.
Many rules have been created under this section.
4In this context, we can only conclude that section 110(16) refers to the practice and procedure of the Board generally, and defines the Board’s ability to control its own process in the hearing. The authority to prescribe rules which would allow the Board to deal with matters short of a hearing is found in the rules created under section 110(17). Those rules do not provide the Board with the jurisdiction, essentially, to grant a motion for summary judgement short of a hearing. Rules 76 and 77 do not apply to section 96 proceedings. Rule 46 applies to all proceedings, but permits the Board to dismiss an application if it fails to make out a prima facie case. It does not permit the Board to dismiss a response on that basis. While the Board could adopt a process providing for summary decisions short of a hearing, it would usually be more appropriate to do so in the context of a written and published rule, rather than in this one application. Accordingly, the Board declines to grant the order sought by the applicant.
5The Registrar is directed to list this matter for hearing at the earliest convenient date without consulting the parties.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board