Paul S. Jarvis

The appellant was dismissed without cause and entered into a pre-litigation settlement agreement with the respondent.

After the appellant commenced a wrongful dismissal action, the respondent successfully moved for summary judgment to enforce the settlement under Rule 49.09.

The appellant's subsequent appeals and motions to set aside the judgment were dismissed.

The appellant then argued that the original order was a nullity because Rule 49.09 does not apply to pre-litigation settlements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the original motions judge had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and any error in the method of enforcement did not render the decision a nullity.

The Peel Regional Police Association applied under section 116 of the Police Services Act to determine whether a fitness coordinator was a 'member' of the police service (an employee) or an independent contractor.

The Commission applied the Algonquin Tavern criteria to assess her employment status.

The Commission found that the coordinator operated her own business, had other clients, hired her own staff, and was not subject to the day-to-day control of the police service.

Consequently, the Commission concluded she was a self-employed independent contractor, not an employee.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalties, including dismissal, arising from allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and contact with female members of the public.

The Commission overturned two convictions due to significant delay in prosecution and issues with the investigation, including the destruction of survey records.

The Commission upheld the third conviction relating to a 1994 incident but found the penalty of immediate dismissal too harsh, substituting a penalty of demotion to second class constable for six months and mandatory sexual harassment training.

Constable Bettes appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty and a penalty of forfeiture of three days' pay arising from his investigation of a motor vehicle accident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and improper procedure, finding that the matter was properly dealt with as an internal disciplinary issue rather than a public complaint.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt but reduced the penalty to a reprimand, noting the officer's junior status, lack of prior discipline, and the harshness of the original penalty.

The grievor voluntarily terminated his employment, at which time the employer withheld his final wages of $756.96 to set off a $7,060 overpayment of room and board allowance mistakenly paid to him.

The union grieved the withholding of wages.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that section 8 of the Employment Standards Act strictly prohibits an employer from unilaterally setting off or deducting amounts from an employee's wages to satisfy a claim, requiring the employer to seek its remedy in court.

The Board directed the employer to pay the withheld wages plus interest.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario (MCAO), the designated employer bargaining agency for the ICI sector, sought to be made a party to the proceedings.

The MCAO argued it had a direct interest because it would become the employer's bargaining agent if certification was granted, and because the threshold issue of whether the work was construction work affected its members.

The Board denied the MCAO's request, finding that an employer bargaining agency's statutory role is limited to collective bargaining and does not grant it a direct legal interest in certification proceedings or the determination of threshold jurisdictional issues.

The applicant, a designated employer bargaining agency, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent companies and trade unions violated the Labour Relations Act by continuing to work and supply employees during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The respondents argued that pneumatic control work was governed by a separate national agreement and fell outside the provincial agreement.

The Board found that the respondent companies perform pneumatic control installation work within the ICI sector, which is a specialization of the plumbing and pipe fitting trade.

The Board declared the national agreement null and void in the ICI sector, but delayed the effect of the declaration until the expiration of the current provincial agreement to allow the parties to integrate the work.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union after the grievance committee withdrew his grievance, which had been posted to arbitration, without allowing him an appeal.

The union had withdrawn the grievance as part of a backlog clearance following contract negotiations, determining it could not succeed at arbitration.

The Board found that the union's internal appeal procedures did not extend to decisions made after a grievance was posted to arbitration.

As the union retained the prerogative to withdraw the grievance and did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, the complaint was dismissed.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification to represent part-time paramedical employees at the Ottawa General Hospital.

The union proposed a bargaining unit of all part-time paramedical employees, while the hospital argued for a unit restricted to part-time medical laboratory technologists.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the hospital's proposed unit was appropriate, as it mirrored the existing collective bargaining structure for full-time employees, avoiding anomalies.

The Board certified the union as the exclusive bargaining agent for the part-time medical laboratory technologists.

The applicant employee applied for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The union argued that the employee petition supporting the application was not voluntary, citing the employer's past unfair labour practices and the recent layoff of employees.

The Board found that sufficient time had passed since the employer's prior misconduct to neutralize its effect, and there was no evidence of recent employer interference.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.