R. Gary McLister

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits based on medical assessments indicating the appellant could return to work.

The arbitrator dismissed the appellant's claim for ongoing benefits, finding he was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment in construction, and calculated a reduced benefit rate based on estimated business expenses.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the expert medical evidence or the pragmatic calculation of the appellant's self-employment income.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits as a self-employed construction worker.

The Insurer paid some benefits but terminated them on March 11, 1996.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment or a partial/complete inability to carry on a normal life after March 11, 1996.

However, the Arbitrator determined the correct quantum of benefits prior to termination, allowing the Applicant to extrapolate his income under subsection 9(3) of the Schedule.

The Arbitrator also granted a $500 special award because the Insurer unreasonably withheld minimum benefits prior to termination, and awarded the Applicant his expenses of the arbitration.

The complainant union notified the Board that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board decision ordering the payment of $247,802.56.

The respondent argued that enforcement should be delayed pending a constitutional challenge at the Court of Appeal.

The Board noted that no stay of proceedings had been obtained and that the Court of Appeal had recently dismissed the respondent's appeal.

Finding that the respondent failed to comply with the determination, the Board directed that a copy of the decision be filed with the Supreme Court of Ontario for enforcement pursuant to section 89(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought certification for crews on commercial fishing boats operating on Lake Erie.

The respondent boat owners raised preliminary objections, arguing that fishing crews are excluded from the Ontario Labour Relations Act as persons employed in 'hunting or trapping' under section 2(b), and alternatively, that labour relations in the fishing industry fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the 'Navigation and Shipping' or 'Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries' powers of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both objections.

The Board held that fishing is distinct from hunting and trapping, and that the intra-provincial commercial fishing operations are not integral to the federal powers over navigation or the preservation of fisheries as a natural resource.

Consequently, the Board asserted jurisdiction to hear the certification applications.

The applicant union filed four applications for certification.

A threshold issue was whether the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the applicant was not a trade union because its constitution allowed vessel owners (alleged to be management) to join, and because some members were not employees.

The Board rejected these arguments, holding that the phrase 'organization of employees' does not mean 'organization of employees only', and that the presence of managerial members does not automatically preclude trade union status.

The Board found that the applicant had followed the necessary steps to form a trade union and declared it to be a trade union under the Act.