Richard Charney

In an application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal in employment, the parties filed requests for interim orders regarding document production.

The respondent sought production of documents from third-party real estate brokerages to show the applicant was actively employed while receiving short-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and ordered their production.

The applicant sought particulars regarding documents over which the respondent claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal held that Rule 16 requires parties to provide sufficient information to allow the opposing party to evaluate the privilege claim, and ordered both parties to exchange specific details about the number, timing, and nature of the privileged documents.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent from a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Persaud, noting that the corporate respondent conceded liability for the personal respondent's conduct and had the ability to remedy any alleged infringement.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual, as his personal conduct was not a central issue, the Tribunal granted the request and removed him as a party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board conducted a sector determination to decide whether the construction of a stand-alone raw sewage pumping station fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the sewer and watermain sector.

Applying an end-use analysis, the Board found that the pumping station did not process or treat sewage, but merely moved it along the sewage lines to a treatment facility.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the end use of the pumping station placed it within the sewer and watermain sector.

The union referred construction industry grievances to arbitration, arguing that a cross-over clause in the sewer and watermain collective agreement bound the responding employer to pay union rates for road building work.

The employer, who was not a member of the accredited employers' organization, argued that the organization's bargaining authority was limited to the sewer and watermain sector.

The Board held that the statutory accreditation scheme is based on sectoral bargaining and does not impose rights by operation of law beyond the specified sector.

Therefore, the cross-over clause did not apply to the non-member employer in the road building sector.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for a group of employers in the construction industry.

The Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization with the necessary authority to act as an accredited bargaining agent.

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description that segregated the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board determined that, given the existing pattern of collective bargaining and the abandonment of bargaining rights by other associations in this specific sub-sector, there were clear and compelling reasons to divide the residential sector.

The Board approved the agreed-upon unit of employers as appropriate for collective bargaining.