Ryan David White

The appellant union engaged in secondary picketing at the respondent's premises during a lawful strike against Canada Post.

The respondent obtained an ex parte injunction under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The union appealed, arguing the injunction should have been governed by s. 102, which requires notice for injunctions connected to a labour dispute.

Although the underlying dispute had settled and the appeal was moot, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to hear the case.

The Court held that s. 102 applies whenever an injunction is sought to restrain picketing that has an identifiable and distinct connection with an underlying labour dispute, regardless of whether the moving party is a direct disputant.

Because the required notice under s. 102 was not provided, the injunction was issued without jurisdiction and was set aside.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether an injunction restraining secondary picketing by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers at a Purolator facility was governed by section 101 or section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The majority held that the definition of "labour dispute" in section 102 encompasses secondary picketing, and therefore, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal without leave under section 102(10).

The dissenting judge would have quashed the appeal, holding that the order was made under section 101 and thus appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had declined to consider the employer's late-filed notice under s. 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the union's estimate of the proposed bargaining unit size.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with the ongoing administrative certification process.

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 plaintiff sought to extend an ex parte interim injunction restraining the respondents from picketing at its premises in a manner that blocked vehicles.

The respondent union requested amendments to the order, specifically to remove a provision precluding the inducing of breach of contract and to narrow the scope of the order to the specific premises rather than province-wide.

The court dismissed the union's requests, finding that the tort of inducing breach of contract does not capture legitimate free speech or boycotts, and that a province-wide order was a preferable use of judicial resources.

The injunction was extended for a further 30 days.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request for an extension of time to file a judicial review application.

The underlying dispute involved a duty of fair representation complaint against her union following an arbitration that reinstated her without compensation.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision, and noting that the proposed fresh evidence would not have altered the outcome.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision.

The applicant sought to challenge the Board's finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation after it declined to seek judicial review of an arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the eight-month delay was not adequately explained, the delay caused substantial prejudice to the timely resolution of labour disputes, and the underlying application for judicial review lacked merit.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion by 94 former employees (proposed interveners) to intervene as an added party in an appeal between 2505243 Ontario Limited and Princes Gates GP Inc. The employees sought to protect a $2.063 million fund set aside for their potential termination claims by the trial judge.

The motion was opposed by Princes Gates GP Inc., while 2505243 Ontario Limited took no position.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that although the proposed interveners had a direct financial interest, their submissions would largely duplicate those of 2505243 Ontario Limited and risked introducing a new, unlitigated issue (common employer) from a separate class proceeding.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had been terminated by her employer, and an arbitrator upheld the termination after a five-day hearing.

The Board found the union did not act arbitrarily in refusing to seek judicial review of the arbitrator's decision.

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

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that reinstated an employee terminated shortly after participating in a union organizing drive.

The Board found the employer failed to prove the termination was free of anti-union animus.

On judicial review, the employer argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit new evidence of poor job performance at the hearing, and that its credibility findings were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's refusal to admit late evidence accorded with its rules and procedural fairness, and that its findings of fact and credibility were reasonable and well-supported by the evidence.

The applicant's union filed a request to intervene in an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit, and there were no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the Tribunal's usual practice.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of grievance and arbitration proceedings related to the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and allegations in the application and those in the grievances.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal determined that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the grievance and arbitration proceedings.

The grievor, an Application Analyst with 10 years of service, was terminated for insubordination after a series of progressive disciplines (suspensions ranging from 1 to 20 days).

The employer alleged she repeatedly failed to attend mandatory meetings, provide weekly status reports, and complete assignments, while taking unauthorized medical leaves.

The union argued the conduct was non-culpable due to stress from her mother's illness and perceived harassment by her supervisor.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer established insubordination, noting the grievor's intentional disregard for her supervisor's authority and failure to correct her behaviour despite numerous warnings.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance challenging the results of a job competition for a Special Projects Foreman/Woman position, alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to consider resumes, personnel files, and references.

The employer conceded that the selection process was flawed but argued the flaws did not affect the outcome.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer breached its obligation to systematically consider all relevant information, the union failed to establish that the grievor's qualifications and abilities were relatively equal to the successful candidate's, even when the omitted information was considered.

The Board issued a declaration that the collective agreement was breached but declined to order the grievor placed in the position or to direct a rerun of the competition.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss portions of a grievance, arguing that the union was improperly attempting to expand the grounds of the original grievance to include three prior suspensions, and alternatively, that challenges to those suspensions were untimely.

The arbitrator found that the original grievance, which alleged improper, unfair, and unreasonable actions jeopardizing the grievor's job security, was broad enough to encompass the three suspensions as part of an ongoing pattern of alleged harassment.

Because the suspensions were considered part of an ongoing allegation of harassment rather than discrete incidents, the grievance was deemed timely.

The employer's motions were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance challenging three disciplinary suspensions given to the grievor.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was filed beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The grievor argued she did not realize the suspensions were disciplinary and was under stress due to her mother's passing.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's explanation unreasonable, noting the disciplinary letters were clear and she had filed grievances previously.

Applying the Becker test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits due to the unreasonable and lengthy delay.

The grievance was dismissed.