Ronald Lebi

The applicants sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions declaring them a related employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants argued the Board improperly refused an adjournment, erred in relying on an agreement signed by an allegedly incapacitated principal, disregarded evidence, and gave improper legal advice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions on the adjournment and the related employer declaration were reasonable, and that there was no evidence of prejudice from any alleged legal advice.

The Greater Essex County District School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) ruling.

The OLRB found that the school board's construction management activities fell within the definition of 'construction industry' under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and that receiving compensation for these activities constituted operating a business.

The OLRB also found the school board and other property owners were 'unrelated persons' under the 'non-construction employer' definition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the OLRB's decision reasonable and its reasons sufficient.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant employer in support of an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The underlying OLRB decision certified the union after finding that a specific worker was not an employee of the applicant.

The court applied the Keeprite standard to determine whether the impugned paragraphs of the affidavit were admissible to show an absence of evidence on an essential point before the Board.

The court struck most of the challenged paragraphs, finding they did not establish a lack of evidence, but permitted one paragraph to stand.

The Union appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision.

The OLRB vice-chair had ruled that he had jurisdiction under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to extend the time for referring a grievance to arbitration, despite the mandatory 14-day time limit in the collective agreement having expired.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, holding that once the time limit expired, the grievance was deemed settled and there was nothing left to refer to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Union's appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court that the OLRB's interpretation of s. 133 was unreasonable and that the OLRB cannot ignore the express mandatory timelines in a collective agreement.

The applicant School Board sought judicial review of two OLRB decisions that allowed a union to proceed with a construction grievance despite referring it to arbitration four months past the collective agreement's 14-day deadline.

The OLRB vice-chair had ruled the timelines were directory and that the OLRB had broad discretion under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act to extend them.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions, holding that the collective agreement's timelines were mandatory and that neither s. 48(16) nor s. 133 of the Act granted the OLRB jurisdiction to extend the time for referring a grievance to arbitration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the arbitrability of a grievance.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, applying the general rule that courts will not entertain judicial review of preliminary rulings while tribunal proceedings are pending, absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify bifurcating the ruling from the merits.

The applicants sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions which found that a 1965 Working Agreement did not confer bargaining rights on them.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court upheld the Board's interpretation that the agreement merely bound the employer to abide by the provisions of the collective agreements, rather than binding the employer to the collective agreements themselves.

The court also dismissed arguments regarding a denial of natural justice due to delay, finding no prejudice was demonstrated.

Both applications were dismissed.

The applicant trade unions sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing their application to declare Cadillac Fairview a related or successor employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board had found that the amalgamation of two corporations did not erode bargaining rights and that there was no sale of a business.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had initially issued a brief decision upholding a union grievance, and later issued supplementary reasons at the union's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act to issue supplementary reasons without reconsidering the decision itself.

The Court found that the doctrine of functus officio applied, and the delivery of supplementary reasons raised a reasonable apprehension of result-driven, after-the-fact reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision denying its request to reconsider a union certification order.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Board did not request further evidence before denying the reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board fully considered the request and the applicant failed to provide reasons for not responding to the initial certification application or evidentiary support for its claims.

The Board's decision was reasonable and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying it as the employer of union members and dismissing its request for reconsideration.

The applicant had failed to respond to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit, later claiming it was not the employer and had ignored the notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decisions were subject to a reasonableness standard of review and that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion in refusing to reconsider the certification despite the applicant's claim that it was not the true employer.

The applicant Union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its grievances.

The Union argued that work paid as maintenance under the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement was actually construction and should have been paid at a higher scale under the Principal Agreement.

The Board found the Union was estopped from relying on the Principal Agreement because its business agent agreed the work would be done under the GPMA.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's application of estoppel, despite section 162 of the Labour Relations Act, was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that substituted a lengthy suspension without pay for the grievor's dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two grounds.

First, the applicant's unexplained delay of over a year and a half in perfecting the application caused prejudice to the respondent and warranted dismissal.

Second, the arbitrator's decision to deny back wages was entirely reasonable and within his broad remedial jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The court found no denial of procedural fairness, as the issue of penalty was in play throughout the hearing.

Following a successful judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, the applicant employer sought costs of $10,000.

The respondent union argued for a lower amount in line with typical labour relations cases, while the Board argued no costs should be awarded against it.

The Divisional Court fixed costs at $4,000 payable by the union, noting that labour relations cases in the court are generally low-cost.

No costs were awarded against the Board as it only addressed the standard of review.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the employer's use of non-bargaining unit agency personnel to perform bargaining unit work.

The arbitrator found that the arrangement constituted 'contracting in' rather than 'contracting out', and that the collective agreement contained an implied term prohibiting the use of agency workers in this manner for longer than two weeks.

The Divisional Court set aside the award on judicial review, finding it patently unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Union's appeal, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction and that his interpretation of the collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision resolving a work jurisdiction dispute over stone masonry work on a construction project.

The Board had ordered the subcontractor to assign the work to the respondent union based on collective bargaining agreement obligations.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board's consideration of the employer's identity, local area practices, and the general contractor's non-party status was rational and supported by evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to certify a union without considering the employer's late-filed response.

The Board had concluded that the word 'shall' in section 128.1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was mandatory, precluding it from considering information filed after the two-day statutory time limit.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.

The Court held that the Board erred in its interpretation, finding that 'shall' in this context is directory and that the Board has the discretion to remedy the breach and consider late-filed information.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The respondent union council brought a motion to quash the applicant employers' application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had previously ruled that a 1999 settlement agreement was unenforceable against the union council, allowing a related employer application to proceed.

The employers sought judicial review to prohibit the Board from proceeding, arguing the application was an abuse of process and breached the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the threshold issue of whether the union council was bound by the settlement should be reviewed prior to the Board hearing the merits.

The court also dismissed the union council's alternative motion to strike an affidavit, admitting the evidence for the judicial review.

The applicants sought urgent judicial review of an interim order by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that required them to call ten specific witnesses and produce will-say statements for them.

The Tribunal had amended the complaint mid-hearing and ordered the applicants to call these witnesses to bridge the evidentiary gap.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the order, holding that the Tribunal's inquisitorial approach breached natural justice and procedural fairness by depriving the applicants of their right to control their own defence in an adversarial proceeding.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions declaring that the applicant was bound by a national collective agreement across all its operations, not just its Toronto district office.

The applicant argued the Board erred in its application of the common law of agency regarding ostensible authority and in its factual finding regarding the scope of the company name on the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision, which involved interpreting a collective agreement in a labour relations context, was subject to a patently unreasonable standard of review and met that standard.