Russel W. Zinn

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim, arguing he was misled during a workplace investigation interview.

The trial judge found the appellant lied about the content of emails with a subordinate and his personal use of company equipment, and agreed to be a party to his subordinate's falsehood.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's application of the McKinley proportionality test, finding the dishonesty was work-related and breached the trust required of managers.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondents brought a motion to dispose of the human rights complaints without a hearing, following a full settlement between the parties.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission consented to the disposition pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board of Inquiry deemed the executed confirmation of settlement as sufficient indicium of the complainants' consent and ordered the matter disposed of without a hearing.

The applicant trade union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between ComDev and Senstar Corporation, and sought a declaration that Senstar was bound by the existing collective agreement.

Senstar argued that only assets were transferred, that the union's geographic scope did not cover Senstar's location, and that the union's constitution did not permit Senstar employees to join.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transfer of patents, technical expertise, customer lists, and goodwill constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also interpreted the collective agreement's geographic scope liberally to include Senstar's location and found the union's constitutional amendment valid.

A representation vote was ordered due to the intermingling of employees.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the corporate employer and its two directing minds, alleging breaches of the Labour Relations Act for refusing to pay previously ordered compensation and refusing to deduct and remit union dues.

The Board found that both the corporation and the individual respondents breached sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Act.

The Board held that individual officers can be held personally liable under these sections.

However, due to the union's significant delay in bringing the complaint regarding the 1985 compensation negotiations, the Board declined to order a remedy for those breaches.

The Board did find the respondents liable for the recent failure to deduct and remit union dues and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Carpenters' union applied for certification of employees of Construction P.H. Grager Inc. The Labourers' union requested reconsideration, arguing they already held bargaining rights through a prior company, Pierre A. Gratton Construction Inc., which was a related or successor employer.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as the new company acquired the experience and expertise of the prior company's principal.

Consequently, the Carpenters' application was deemed a displacement application, the previous certificate was rescinded, and a representation vote was ordered.