0471-01-U Ronald Douglas, Applicant v. Laundry and Linen Drivers and Industrial Workers Union Local 847 affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Responding Party v. Columbia MBF Inc., Intervenor.
1514-01-M Ronald Douglas, Applicant v. Laundry and Linen Drivers and Industrial Workers Union Local 847 affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Responding Party.
1600-01-M Ronald Douglas, Applicant v. David Young, Nancy Maharaj and Gary Hughson, Responding Parties.
1620-01-R Ronald Douglas, Applicant v. Columbia MBF and Teamsters Local 847, Responding Parties.
1685-01-U Ronald Douglas, Applicant v. Local 847 Teamsters, Gil Davis, Daniel Green and David Young, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 13, 2001
Our decision of October 15, 2001 directed the applicant to file and deliver written submissions in respect of Board File No. 1685-01-U on or before October 29, 2001, failing which that matter would be dismissed without further notice. The Board has not received any written submissions from the applicant within the time stipulated. Accordingly, the application in Board File No. 1685-01-U is hereby dismissed.
In the same decision, we also directed the applicant to file and deliver written submissions with respect to the contention of the responding parties that the applications brought by the applicant amount to an abuse of the Board’s process, and that the Board should impose a bar of one year to future applications naming the responding parties or their representatives pursuant to section 111(2)(k) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as amended (“the Act”), or require the applicant to seek leave to file further applications involving those same responding parties or their representatives. Those written submissions were to have been provided on or before October 29, 2001. The Board did not receive any written submissions from the applicant within the time stipulated.
In the absence of any response from the applicant, and having regard to the lack of substance in the applicant’s pleadings in most of these matters, we are led to the inference that all the applications, with the possible exception of the application in Board File No. 1514-01-M, were brought for the purpose of vexing the respective responding parties. That amounts to an abuse of the Board’s process.
It is open to the Board to impose a bar upon future applications for a period of up to one year, pursuant to section 111(2) of the Act. Moreover, in our view, it is also an option for the Board, pursuant to section 23 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. S-22, to require a would-be applicant to seek leave of the Board before filing an application. However, we are not prepared at this time to conclude that the applicant’s abuse of the Board’s process is ongoing and so severe as to warrant the kinds of remedies urged upon us by the responding parties in these matters. That view could change if the applicant’s apparent fervour to make himself an irritant to the responding parties manifests itself again through the waging of further, obviously unmeritorious, litigation before the Board.
To summarize, the application in Board File No. 1685-01-U is hereby dismissed. The applications in Board File Nos. 0471-01-U, 1600-01-M and 1620-01-R were previously dismissed in our decision of October 15, 2001. The application in Board File No. 1514-01-M remains to be processed in the ordinary course.
“Patrick Kelly
for the Board