Richard J. Charney

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the assignment of certain I-beam installation work to a rival union.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider twenty drawings submitted with its reply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had considered the drawings and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

Following an unsuccessful application for judicial review regarding mill closures, the applicants argued that no costs should be awarded due to the public interest nature of the litigation.

The court rejected this argument, noting the applicants had a personal and pecuniary interest in the outcome.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondents, fixing the Ministry's costs at $22,368.68 and reducing Domtar's claimed costs to $12,000 to account for duplication of work among the respondents.

The applicants sought judicial review and an order of mandamus to compel the Minister of Natural Resources to require public consultation and amendments to Forest Management Plans before two forestry companies could restructure their operations, close certain sawmills, and redirect wood supply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Plans regulate forest operations and sustainability, not the processing of harvested wood at specific mills.

As the restructuring did not change the forest operations or impact sustainability, no Plan amendments or public consultations were required under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award which held that the collective agreement violated the Human Rights Code by providing different drug and hospital benefit coverage durations for employees receiving Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) benefits compared to those receiving long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the arbitrator erred by failing to compare the two benefit schemes holistically.

When viewed in their entirety, the WSIA scheme provided significant advantages over the LTD plan, and the differential treatment did not constitute discrimination.

During a lawful strike, picketers consistently obstructed the employer's vans from entering and exiting the plant until police arrived.

The employer obtained an interlocutory injunction after police could not guarantee immediate assistance.

The union appealed, arguing the condition precedent in s. 102(3) of the Courts of Justice Act was not met because police eventually provided access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the appeal, finding that reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance had failed to result in an acceptable degree of control.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by striking the term limiting the number of picketers to four, holding that it unreasonably restricted the employees' right of expression.

The appellant town terminated its contract with a transportation company for the operation of its municipal transit system and commenced operating the system itself, hiring a significant number of the company's laid-off workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a 'sale of a business' had occurred under s. 64 of the Labour Relations Act, binding the town as a successor employer.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the town's appeal, holding that the Board's finding of a nexus between the company and the town was not patently unreasonable given their historical and functional connection.