CITATION: Vale Inco Ltd. v. United Steel, 2011 ONSC 5951
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 451/11
DATE: 20111007
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
PARDU, DAMBROT AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
VALE INCO LIMITED
Applicant
– and –
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCALS 6500 AND 6200 AND THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents
Christopher G. Riggs and Frank Cesario, for the Applicant
Brian Shell, for the Respondent USW
Voy T. Stelmaszynski, for the Respondent, Ontario Labour Relations Board
HEARD AT Toronto: October 7, 2011
PARDU J. (orally)
[1] Vale Inco Limited asks this Court to quash ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board on the ground of procedural unfairness.
[2] After hearing some evidence adduced through oral examination and cross examination of witnesses, the Board directed the parties to file will say statements, allowed them to expand on the will say with a further thirty minutes of examination in chief, with cross examination to follow.
[3] The applicant argues that to change the rules of proceeding mid-stream is fundamentally unfair and that the entire proceedings must be vitiated. It argues, that having allowed the Union to present its evidence orally without time limits, it would be unfair not to give the employer the same opportunity.
[4] On this record, we are unable to conclude that the measures adopted by the Board result in unfairness. We do not know the precise factual issues in dispute nor the nature of the evidence affected by the ruling. In Ontario (Liquor Control Board) v. Lifford Wine Agencies, (2005) 2005 25179 (ON CA), O.J. No. 3042, Cronk J.A. noted at paragraphs 42 and 43:
Neither the interests of justice nor meaningful judicial review are facilitated by the untimely challenge of administrative action during the course of a pending hearing before an administrative tribunal. Accordingly, as a general rule, such review applications should be avoided until completion of the applicable tribunal’s hearing, when a full record will be available to the reviewing court. This is particularly the case where there is an adequate alternative remedy by way of appeal.
This general rule, however, is not absolute and should not be applied rigidly if there is a prospect of real unfairness through, for example, the denial of natural justice. In these circumstances, which will arise infrequently, the courts will intervene before completion of an administrative hearing and prior to the exhaustion of all alternative remedies.
[5] For the reasons stated, we are not able to conclude that there is a prospect of real unfairness. This is not one of those unusual cases where judicial review should be granted in respect of procedural rulings made part way through a hearing.
[6] The application is dismissed.
[7] Costs to the respondent Union fixed at $5,000.00.
PARDU J.
DAMBROT J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 7, 2011
Date of Release: October 31, 2011
CITATION: Vale Inco Ltd. v. United Steel, 2011 ONSC 5951
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 451/11
DATE: 20111007
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
PARDU, DAMBROT AND
HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
VALE INCO LIMITED
Applicant
– and –
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCALS 6500 AND 6200 AND THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PARDU J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 7, 2011
Date of Release: October 31, 2011