Robert Gibson

The applicant union sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions finding that it had abandoned its bargaining rights for certain construction employees, thereby allowing a rival union's certification application to proceed.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably departed from precedent by failing to focus on the union's intention to abandon its rights and by ignoring its 2021 negotiating efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board reasonably applied established principles, properly assessed the objective evidence of the applicant's prolonged inactivity, and correctly concluded that the bargaining rights had been abandoned by 2020 and could not be revived by subsequent conduct.

The applicant employer sought judicial review to quash an arbitrator's interim order compelling it to produce documents for a full audit by the respondent union.

The union brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as premature.

The court dismissed the employer's application for judicial review, agreeing with the union that the application was premature because the arbitrator's order was an interim award that did not resolve the grievance on its merits.

The court emphasized that judicial review of interim orders is only available in very narrow "exceptional circumstances" which were not met here, and found no significant harm to the employer from the ordered production and audit.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding a union grievance regarding the payment of weekly room and board allowances under a provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued that a memorandum of agreement settling a strike had superseded the weekly rate with a daily rate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's interpretation, which reconciled the memorandum with the expired collective agreement and applied the principle that clear language is needed to remove a benefit, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that required it to enter into a collective agreement with the respondent employer following a final offer vote under s. 42(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had refused to sign the agreement, arguing it would break a pattern agreement applicable to the non-ICI construction sector.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions unreasonable, holding that the Act does not require a union to object to a final offer vote at the outset, and that the Board unreasonably excluded the existence of a pattern agreement as a justification for refusing to sign.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to a different panel of the Board.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's refusal to order the respondent employer to restrict the operation of an overhead crane to workers holding a specific mobile crane certificate.

By the time of the hearing, the construction project had concluded, rendering the underlying dispute moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no special circumstances.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Board's interpretation of the occupational health and safety regulations was reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant union sought judicial review of four Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that dismissed its application for certification of a construction industry bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably refused to order a representation vote and lacked discretion to dismiss the application under s. 128.1(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant did not wish to represent the appropriate province-wide bargaining unit and that determining employee support was impossible due to the passage of time caused by the applicant's litigation strategy.

The Court held the Board reasonably interpreted s. 128.1(13) as conferring discretion to dismiss an unmeritorious application to avoid leaving it in limbo.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision that certified a union and dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration.

The applicant had filed its response to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit via courier, but the OLRB rejected it for failing to comply with a COVID-19 'Notice to Community' requiring electronic filing, despite the OLRB's own forms and rules permitting courier delivery.

The Divisional Court found a breach of procedural fairness, quashed the OLRB's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Board to be decided on its merits.

The Minister applied for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision finding the respondents, a mother and daughter from Nigeria, were Convention refugees without a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA).

The RAD had allowed the respondents' appeal from the Refugee Protection Division, which had found viable IFAs in Lagos or Ibadan.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was unreasonable because it relied almost exclusively on objective country condition evidence regarding mental health services and difficulties facing single women, without sufficient evidence of the respondents' specific subjective circumstances or inability to relocate to the proposed IFAs.

The RAD unreasonably reversed the onus, which was on the respondents to establish that relocating to the proposed IFAs would be unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal.

He claimed a risk of persecution in India due to his interfaith marriage to a Muslim woman.

The RAD found he had viable internal flight alternatives in Delhi and Mumbai.

The applicant argued the RAD failed to consider the general risk to Muslims in India.

The Court found the RAD reasonably considered the documentary evidence and concluded association with Muslims did not create a risk of persecution by state or non-state actors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion in writing for an order compelling the Immigration Appeal Division to provide a written transcript of her oral testimony as part of its certified record for her underlying application for judicial review.

The Tribunal had uploaded the audio recording of the proceedings.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 17(d) does not impose a statutory obligation on the Tribunal to prepare a written transcript where one was not already prepared for its file, and the provision of the audio recording was sufficient.

The applicant, an RCMP member, sought judicial review of a decision by a Conduct Adjudicator dismissing his appeal from a Conduct Authority decision.

The Conduct Authority had found the applicant failed to comply with a lawful order to submit leave requests.

The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard and found that the Conduct Adjudicator reasonably concluded that the order to submit leave was clear and that the applicant had failed to obey it by the specified date.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a Georgian citizen of Ossetian descent, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting his claim on the basis of adequate state protection.

The applicant alleged fear of persecution from radical nationalists.

The RAD found the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection, noting that police had intervened, questioned him, filed reports, and opened investigations following attacks in March and June 2014.

The RAD also found the applicant failed to take reasonable steps to seek protection by failing to report a subsequent attack and not providing updated contact information to police.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, distinguishing earlier case law because the RAD had examined the specific steps police took and the applicant's failure to maintain contact, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an application for certification.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought reconsideration by the Board under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the conflicting Board decisions raised important policy issues regarding the interpretation of its home statute, and that reconsideration offered an adequate alternative remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as premature.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on a Ministerial reference, arguing they were denied procedural fairness because the Minister's question was inaccurately conveyed to them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision on a Ministerial reference is an advisory opinion that does not determine legal rights and is therefore not reviewable on procedural fairness grounds.

Furthermore, the court found that the procedural defect did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the applicants had ample opportunity to address the core issues and the outcome would not have been different.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, arguing the Board made procedural errors by issuing a faulty Confirmation of Filing that did not accurately reflect the Minister's question.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court held that the applicants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as they did not request the Board to reconsider its decision under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which would have allowed the Board to address the procedural errors and any resulting prejudice.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his step-daughter over a 38-month period prior to her 16th birthday, and with two forms of sexual exploitation during periods following her 16th birthday.

The Crown proceeded by indictment; the accused elected trial in Ontario Court of Justice and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The case turned on credibility in a classic "she said/he said" scenario.

The court found the complainant credible and the accused's evidence riddled with material inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final custody order respecting an adult child with significant developmental disabilities.

The prior consent order provided for joint decision-making and shared residence with disputes to be resolved by a parenting coordinator with binding authority.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the parenting coordinator process had collapsed due to the responding party’s refusal to cooperate, leaving the parties unable to make joint decisions regarding the child’s care and programming.

Applying the best interests test under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, the court concluded that sole custody with the applicant was necessary to ensure consistent decision-making and access to structured support programs.

Primary residence was granted to the applicant with alternating weekend access to the respondent and shared holidays.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by his union based on race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider the respondents' request to dismiss the application for delay and failure to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations from 1997 and 1999 were untimely and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the timely allegations regarding a threat at a union meeting and the denial of a political donation did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding three applications for certification in the construction industry.

The Board directed that the applications be consolidated to deal with 104 status disputes.

The responding party was ordered to file its reply, including statements from individuals whose status is in dispute, by a specified date.

The Board also scheduled a further pre-hearing conference and set multiple hearing dates for the consolidated matters.

The intervenor trade union requested reconsideration of the Board's decision denying it intervenor status in a certification application.

The intervenor argued it was denied natural justice and that the Board's ruling was contrary to previous jurisprudence regarding notice.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the intervenor raised no new arguments that could not have been made at the original hearing, and that the right to file a grievance under its collective agreement would not be affected by the Board's determination of the employee list in the certification application.