Rodney Morton Godard

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer paid some initial chiropractic and travel expenses but denied further claims.

The applicant sought arbitration for supplementary medical rehabilitation expenses, weekly income benefits, and a special award.

The arbitrator allowed the claim for specific chiropractic treatments and associated travel expenses incurred in 1992, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for housekeeping expenses, herbal remedies, a spa, and weekly income benefits were dismissed due to a lack of medical evidence connecting them to the accident.

The request for a special award was also denied, as the insurer had not acted unreasonably.

The insurer sought an order requiring the insured to attend an independent medical examination in London and a functional capacities evaluation at the Canadian Back Institute.

The arbitrator held that the insurer could choose its medical examiner, but it was unreasonable to require the insured to travel from Windsor to London for the examination.

The arbitrator also dismissed the request for a functional capacities evaluation, finding no evidence that the chosen doctor required an assessment by an undesignated health professional to assist in evaluating the insured's condition.

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.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his discharge grievance without adequate investigation.

The complainant had been terminated for absence without a satisfactory reason, despite providing medical notes.

The union withdrew the grievance after a doctor could not verify the illness for the entire period, but failed to contact other doctors or consult the complainant before doing so.

The Board found the union's conduct to be perfunctory and arbitrary.

The Board ordered the grievance to proceed to arbitration, with the union liable for a portion of any resulting compensation due to its breach and the complainant's delay.