Patrick Moran

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against Ontario Power Generation and Babcock and Wilcox Canada Ltd. The applicant consented to dismissing the application against Ontario Power Generation due to federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal considered whether the remaining allegations against Babcock should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the initial layoff in April 2009 and a subsequent request for accommodation in July 2010 did not constitute a series of incidents.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the April 2009 layoff due to delay, finding no good faith reason for the late filing.

The allegations relating to the July 2010 incident were permitted to proceed.

A request to defer the application pending a grievance was denied.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Energy Board granting leave to construct a natural gas pipeline to the proposed Greenfield Energy Centre.

The appellants argued the Board erred by limiting its public interest consideration to the pipeline itself, rather than considering the environmental and socio-economic effects of the generating station and the resulting closure of a coal-fired plant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly limited its jurisdiction to the specific project before it and correctly deferred to the Ministry of the Environment on the assessment of the plant.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) dismissing their appeal of a Committee of Adjustment's decision to grant consents for a 40-year lease to construct a gas-fired power plant.

The applicants opposed the project due to anticipated job losses resulting from the closure of a nearby coal-fired plant.

The OMB dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that the job loss concerns related to the permitted use of the property as a power plant, not to the planning merits of the consents themselves.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, holding that the OMB correctly determined the applicants' concerns were not relevant planning grounds for the consent application.

The appellant, having been successful in obtaining the dismissal of the motion by the Attorney General to quash the stated case, in obtaining leave to appeal, and on the appeal itself, sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellant payable by the Attorney General on a partial indemnity basis.

Recognizing that the central issue was addressed three times and was not unduly complex, the court fixed a global amount of $18,000 for fees and $5,000 for disbursements.

The applicant union sought an interim certificate for a bargaining unit of employees at a grocery store.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description except for the inclusion of certain department managers, whom the responding party argued should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the union's right to certification would not be affected by the ultimate decision on the disputed classifications, as more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the union regardless of the outcome.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 9(2) of the Act to issue an interim certificate pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

A corrigendum was later issued to correct the description of the disputed positions.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by requiring employees to provide receipts to claim a $70 daily living expense allowance.

The union argued that past practice and estoppel prevented the employer from changing its long-standing practice of paying the allowance without proof of expenses.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding no ambiguity in the collective agreement language, which explicitly reserved the employer's right to pay only actual costs incurred.

The Board also found no estoppel, noting the employer gave notice of its intent to enforce the strict language well before the collective agreement expired.

Following a pre-hearing conference regarding an unfair labour practice complaint, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions.

The Crown advised it would participate without prejudice to its preliminary objection that it is not a proper responding party.

The Board reserved judgment on the objection until final argument.

The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the onus of proof, agreed facts, documents, and remedies sought, and directed the employer and trade union to advise if further bargaining days have been scheduled.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed an unfair labour practice complaint against Comcare, alleging that the employer's actions during a lawful strike violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union argued that the employer unlawfully intimidated striking nurses by contacting them about their availability, issuing Records of Employment, and terminating their benefits.

The union also alleged that the employer's use and payment of replacement workers constituted unlawful strike-breaking and surface bargaining.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer's communications, while 'playing hardball' and intended to bring home the economic consequences of the strike, were not unlawfully intimidating or coercive.

The Board also found that the employer had a rational business reason for its use and payment of replacement workers, and that its actions did not constitute a breach of the Act.

The applicant international union applied to extend its trusteeship over the respondent local union for a further 12 months under s. 89(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Pending the hearing of the main application, the applicant requested an interim extension of the trusteeship.

The Board declined to grant the interim extension, noting the delay in bringing the application, the lack of assurances regarding upcoming elections, and the inherent prejudice to those opposing the extension.

The Board directed that notice be given to the local union members and listed the matter for hearing alongside related unfair labour practice complaints.

The applicants brought jurisdictional dispute applications regarding the assignment of work for the fabrication and installation of a monorail at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing that labour relations at the nuclear facility fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test and determined that while the production of nuclear energy and its attendant safety concerns are within federal jurisdiction, the fabrication and installation of the monorail is not integral to the federal undertaking.

Having found it had jurisdiction, the Board directed Ontario Hydro to assign the work to the applicants based on collective agreements and historical practice.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment currently being performed by the intervener union.

The Board determined that the grievance was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application to allow the parties to file a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Act, directing that both matters be listed and heard together if a jurisdictional dispute is filed.

The applicant employer sought relief under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union and several of its officials and members engaged in, authorized, or encouraged an unlawful strike by instituting a ban on overtime work.

The Board found that the concerted withholding of overtime constituted a strike within the meaning of the Act, and because it occurred during the operation of a collective agreement, it was unlawful.

The Board issued declarations and cease and desist directions against the union, certain officials, and certain employees, but dismissed the application against the International union, the Canadian Labour Congress, and individuals for whom there was insufficient evidence of participation.