International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25 v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada
1904-99-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25, Applicants v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Jerry Coelho, Tom Oldham, Kerry Wilson, John Haggis and Luigi Scodellaro, Responding Parties v. IUBAC Locals 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 23, 28, 29, and 31; Masonry Industry Employers’ Council of Ontario; Terrazzo, Tile and Marble Guild of Ontario Inc., Intervenors.
3003-00-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25; Peter Sartorius; Michael Connolly, Applicants v. Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Jerry Coelho, Tom Oldham, Kerry Wilson, John Haggis, Luigi Scodellaro, Robert Watson and Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Responding Parties v. Masonry Industry Employers Council of Ontario, Intervenor
3331-00-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25, Applicants v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Locals 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 23, 28, 29 and 31, Responding Parties v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Intervenor.
1220-01-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25; Peter Sartorius; Michael Connolly, Applicants v. Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 29, 2001
1Attempts by the Registrar’s office and by me to arrange a mutually agreeable date for a hearing or a pre-hearing conference have produced no result. It does not assist the parties or the Board’s process if disputes drag on interminably. That is particularly so in the case of these parties where the issues giving rise to this litigation have been hotly contested for years. The repetition of allegations among these applications and the history of litigation contained in them attest to that.
2That is not to suggest that there is any certainty that the applicants in these files are or are not entitled to any of the relief sought, or that there may or may not be valid objections raised by the responding parties to the Board’s jurisdiction to deal with some of the issues in these applications. However, in either case, the very fact of outstanding, unresolved litigation can contribute to or prolong disputes that require a solution. The parties need to know where they stand, and what, if any, their legal rights are.
3Accordingly, the Board will proceed to set dates for hearing in this matter based on its own availability. Nothing should be seen as preventing parties from agreeing on another timetable provided that any mutually agreeable timetable can be accommodated by the Registrar of the Board. However, in the absence of any agreement, or reasonable prospect for agreement, the Board will proceed to set dates without further consultation with the parties.
4I fix the following dates for the purposes set out below.
5September 25, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. I will meet with counsel to discuss what issues can or need to be argued on a preliminary basis, and what a reasonable timetable for the hearing of these applications will be. Any other issues, for example, about overlap of proceedings or pleadings (which may be the subject of preliminary motions or not) should also be raised at this time. Clients are of course free to attend, but I would anticipate that only counsel will be in attendance.
6Either or both of October 19 and October 26, 2001 will be set to deal with any preliminary motions raised by any party. My sense is that only the responding parties have raised any, but if there are others, they should be addressed at that time. If counsel are convinced that only one day will be required for all preliminary motions, they should advise the Registrar of that fact. If they can agree on which day that should be, that too should be communicated to the Registrar. If the parties reach no such agreement by the end of the day on Friday, September 7, 2001, both days will be set for the hearing of preliminary motions. If counsel agree that only one day is required, they should be prepared on that day to indicate who will be speaking for how long. These time limits will be observed.
7I am seized of these applications.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board