Court File and Parties
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Christian Labour Association of Canada, Applicant
– and –
City of Toronto, Respondent
Before: F.L. Myers, J.
Counsel: Marc Kemerer and Christopher Statham, counsel for the Applicant Michael J. Sims, counsel for the Respondent Paul J.J. Cavalluzzo, Adrienne Telford, Balraj Dosanjh, counsel for Intervenor Laborers' International Union of North America
Heard: April 20, 2021
Relief Requested
1An order quashing a resolution adopted by the City of Toronto Council on June 19, 2019, directing the City Manager, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to enter into negotiations for a Voluntary Recognition Agreement with the Laborers’ International Union of North America.
Disposition Made
2The application is dismissed.
Costs
3Costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $ 10,000, are payable by the applicant to the Respondent by May 21, 2021.
Brief Reasons
4This application to quash a resolution of the City of Toronto is properly made to this court pursuant to section 214 (1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11. Schedule A. I agree with Mr Cavalluzzo that the validity of any voluntary recognition agreement that may be entered into between the city and his client is a question for the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I agree with him as well that under section 94 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, the board may well have authority to terminate any exclusive bargaining rights that may be agreed to among the city and his client. But, at that stage, there will be a voluntary recognition agreement before the board. It will not be considering the vires of the resolution to negotiate such an agreement under the City of Toronto Act, 2006. The determination of the validity of the resolution passed by the City of Toronto is specifically assigned to the court under the statutory provision set out above.
5There is no voluntary recognition agreement in existence yet for the board to assess. Nothing that I say or find in this decision has any bearing on any application that may come before the board later if and when the city and LIUNA sign a voluntary recognition agreement.
6It is perfectly obvious that the city has authority to manage its labour relations in connection with its own construction projects. Moreover, entering into a collective bargaining agreement or a voluntary recognition agreement cannot amount to an unlawful monopoly under section 14 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. Even if it a collective agreement could be said to be an “exclusive right to carry on any business, trade or occupation” (which I doubt), the agreements are specifically authorized by the Ontario Labour Relations Act and would therefore be exempted from the prohibition in s. 14 in the section in any even.t
7I understand the applicant's argument that the city has discriminated against it and other unions and favoured LIUNA for reasons the applicant believes are unreasonable and illegitimate. The city has chosen to fetter its discretion in face of its purchasing policy and a recent change in the Ontario Labour Relations Act both of which are aimed at increased competition in the construction market. It is not the court's role in an application of this type to consider the reasonableness of the city's decision to cozy up to one particular union to the exclusion of others. The sole issue is whether the city has the authority under its constating statute to pass the resolution
8Section 8 of the statute leaves no doubt that the city has authority to pass bylaws respecting construction projects that it may wish to undertake. Labour relations are an important part of any such project. Moreover, the city has any number of exclusive bargaining relationships with unions who are the exclusive bargaining agents for their members. If it is entitled to pass a bylaw approving a collective bargaining agreement or a voluntary recognition agreement, then a fortiori it can enter into a resolution to tell staff to negotiate an agreement that it has a right to make.
9I do not agree that the city's resolution was an improper “third option” when it decided to continue to be bound by province-wide collective agreements regarding construction in the ICI sector. It made two decisions on the same day. One was authorized under the recent amendment to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The other was authorized under section 8 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. Nothing makes that improper or illicit.
10The applicant's argument about the purpose and effect of the resolution and the proposed voluntary recognition agreement really go to questions of whether a voluntary recognition agreement, if one is signed, is reasonable or ought to be recognized under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Those are not questions of the vires of the resolution under s. 214 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.
11The application is therefore dismissed.
12There is no reason to deviate from the normative approach that costs follow the event. The city seeks costs on a partial indemnity of $10,000. The applicant sought a far greater quantum of costs. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the amount requested by the city is fair and reasonable and well within the range of reasonable contemplation by the applicant.
13Costs are ordered as set out in the “Costs” box above.
Myers, J.
Date: April 20, 2021