2020-00-U Ontario Pipe Trades Council, Applicant v. The Honourable Mr. Michael Harris and the Honourable Mr. Chris Stockwell, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 22, 2000
1. The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding parties as identified in the response filed by Crown counsel: “The Honourable Mr. Michael Harris and the Honourable Mr. Chris Stockwell”.
2. This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding individuals (being, respectively the Premier of the Province of Ontario and the Minister of Labour) have contravened various provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
3. The details of the allegations need not be set out here. It suffices to say that they arise from interactions which the Minister had with various parties/persons in respect of certain issues and potential legislation pertaining to the construction industry.
4. In the Board’s experience, these allegations are somewhat novel.
5. So is the submission of the applicant that, because of the identity of the responding parties, no adjudicator at the Board is legally capable of dealing with the complaint.
6. In other words, (as I understand it) the applicant’s position is that, although the Board has exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to hear and determine unfair labour practice allegations, there is no adjudicator at the Board who is legally capable of considering these particular allegations against these particular individuals.
7. In response to the application, the Crown, on behalf of the named responding parties, has filed a motion urging the Board to dismiss the application or exercise its discretion not to enquire into it. The Crown contends that the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for the relief requested. The motion to dismiss reads, in part:
“it is the respondents’ position that the application does not make out a case for the orders or remedies requested, even if, as is required by the Board’s jurisprudence in this type of motion, all of the facts stated in the application are assumed to be true. Consequently, the Board should exercise its discretion to dismiss the application without a hearing”.
8. The Crown’s submissions are lengthy, and supported by copious references to previous Board decisions and judicial authority. Again, the details of these submissions need not to be set out here.
9. As of the date hereof, the applicant has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
10. Since the prima facie case/discretion motion is premised upon the assumption that the facts alleged are true and provable, it is not obvious why any formal “hearing” might be required at this stage. It appears to me that these are “legal issues”, which may be appropriately dealt with through written submissions – as is normally the case with motions of this kind.
11. The applicant is therefore directed to set out in writing and in detail its response to the Crown’s motion to dismiss.
12. The applicant is also directed to set out in writing and in detail:
(1) any facts upon which it relies in support of its position that the Board is institutionally incapable of entertaining the complaints; and
(2) its legal submissions (and authorities) in support of that proposition.
13. The applicant will have until Monday December 11, 2000 to complete these representations; and the Crown will have a further seven days to reply.
14. Upon receipt of these representations from the parties, the Board will make such determination or hold such hearing as seems appropriate on the basis of material then before it.
“R. O. MacDowell”
for the Board