R. Burns

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the use of property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the continuous use of the property was permissive, noting the trial judge was entitled to consider the nature of the use, the understanding of participants, and the effect on the property.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The employer filed two grievances under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act against individual employees and their respective unions, alleging the employees breached the collective agreement by failing to return tools and improperly receiving subsistence allowances.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding arbitrability, proper delivery of the grievances, and delay.

The Board reserved its decision on whether an employer can grieve against individual employees until the merits are heard.

The Board held that delivery of the grievance to the local union satisfied the statutory requirement, and delivery to the individual employees was not required.

However, the Board dismissed the grievance concerning the subsistence allowance due to the employer's unexplained 14-month delay in pursuing the matter.