Scott G. Thompson

The applicant union sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of an arbitral award that dismissed grievances regarding the discharge of employees who could not complete a new job rotation due to disabilities.

The application was brought more than eight months after the award, well beyond the 30-day time limit in section 5(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court denied the extension of time under section 5(2), holding that the court retains discretion to consider the length of and explanation for the delay, and found the applicant's delay was lengthy and unexplained, and the grounds for relief were weak.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that assigned scaffolding tending work to the Labourers rather than the Carpenters.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably failed to apply the 'specialty scaffolding contractor' exception from its past jurisprudence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, as the Board had considered the past jurisprudence but concluded the exception did not apply on the facts of this case, given the nature of the work and the overwhelming area practice at the Bruce Power site.

A professional engineer and his employer faced discipline following the collapse of a temporary stage at Downsview Park that killed one worker and injured three others.

The engineer admitted to professional misconduct for preparing inadequate structural drawings, conducting an inadequate field review, and affirming the structural adequacy of the stage without a reasonable basis.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, revoking the engineer's licence and ordering publication of the findings with his name.

The corporate respondent, which had declared bankruptcy, was fined $5,000 payable if it ever seeks reinstatement of its Certificate of Authorization.

The applicant alleged discrimination by his union and several employers regarding work opportunities and accommodation of his disability.

At a summary hearing, the applicant conceded that allegations against several employers and the personal respondent were untimely or should be removed.

The Tribunal found the remaining allegations against the union were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay, and dismissed them.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant's allegation that Plan Group failed to accommodate his disability up to the point of undue hardship had a reasonable prospect of success, as a factual nexus existed and a full evidentiary record was required to determine if the duty to accommodate was met.

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 Crown appealed a decision granting certiorari and prohibition to quash summonses issued under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The application judge held that jurisdiction was lost when nothing was done on the original return date and that the one-year limitation period had expired before new summonses were issued.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 31 of the Provincial Offences Act preserves jurisdiction over the offence and permits the issuance of new summonses.

The Court also held that a prosecution is instituted when an information is laid, not when process is issued, meaning the charges were laid within the limitation period.

The applicant union local sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that allowed the parent union to assume jurisdiction over a specific construction project.

The Board had proceeded by way of an expedited consultation process rather than a full hearing, relying on pleadings and oral submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's Rule 41 permitting consultations was not ultra vires, the Board did not breach natural justice or procedural fairness, and its decisions on both procedure and the merits were not patently unreasonable given the specialized labour relations context and the need for expedition.

The respondent commenced a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated.

The appellant employer brought a motion to dismiss the action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was covered by a collective agreement.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondent exercised managerial functions and was not an employee under the Labour Relations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the respondent's status.

Under the exclusive jurisdiction model, the question of whether a dispute is arbitrable must be determined by an arbitrator.

The action was stayed pending arbitration.

The applicant union filed applications under sections 1(4), 96, and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union used its pension fund to set up contractors to undercut bids and secure scaffolding work for its members.

The responding parties brought a motion to dismiss the section 96 application and the section 1(4) application as it related to certain contractors.

The Board struck the contractors and the responding union from the section 1(4) application, finding no facts pleaded to support a related employer declaration based merely on a commercial subcontracting relationship.

However, the Board declined to dismiss the section 96 application, holding that the allegations raised novel legal issues and policy considerations regarding union pension fund investments that should not be dismissed without a full hearing on the merits.

The applicants filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the respondent trade union, alleging it failed to provide sufficient information regarding a pension plan merger prior to a ratification vote and challenging the settlement of a grievance.

The Board dismissed the application for delay, noting it was filed 10 months after the ratification vote without explanation.

The Board found that permitting the application to proceed would be highly prejudicial to the union and the employer, who had continued to manage their collective bargaining relationship based on the ratified agreement.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging an unlawful strike.

At the scheduled hearing, the parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order.

The Board issued the consent order, declaring that the employees engaged in an unlawful strike and that the responding union and its officials authorized and encouraged it.

The Board directed the employees, the union, and its officials to cease and desist from participating in, authorizing, or encouraging the unlawful strike.

In an application for certification by IBEW Local 1687, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined preliminary issues regarding standing and procedure.

The Board held that the Power Workers' Union (PWU) did not have standing to intervene, as its membership evidence did not confer representational authorization for this proceeding and it had not previously asserted bargaining rights over the affected employees.

The Board also declined to count the ballots from a prior representation vote, finding the results would not be dispositive of any remaining issues.

Finally, the Board established the order for determining the remaining issues, starting with whether a Letter of Understanding constituted a collective agreement bar.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of all employees of the respondent, including both warehouse and office/clerical staff.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that office and clerical staff should be placed in a separate bargaining unit, relying on historical Board policy.

The Board rejected the argument that exceptional circumstances were required to combine the groups, noting that modern workplaces have evolved.

Applying the community of interest test, the Board found that the employees shared common hours, benefits, wage determination methods, and frequently transferred between office and warehouse roles.

The Board concluded that the all-employee unit was appropriate and certified the applicant.

The complainant, an electrical contractors association, challenged a mid-term amendment to a province-wide collective agreement negotiated by the designated employer and employee bargaining agencies in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The complainant argued that the bargaining agencies exhausted their authority once the agreement was concluded and could not amend it before its expiry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the statutory designation of bargaining agencies includes the incidental power to amend the collective agreement mid-term, consistent with the general power of parties to revise agreements by mutual consent under the Labour Relations Act.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union and its officials contravened various sections of the Labour Relations Act by requiring contractors and name-hired foremen to sign declarations regarding their employment status upon demotion.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the complaints for failing to disclose a prima facie case and argued the matter should be deferred to arbitration.

The Board found that the complainants lacked status to complain on behalf of union members under sections 70 and 78, and that the facts pleaded did not disclose a prima facie case for illegal strike activity.

The Board further held that the dispute was essentially contractual, concerning the interpretation of the collective agreement, and deferred the remaining allegations to the arbitration process.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued the application was barred by a prior voluntary recognition agreement entered into by the parties.

The Board held that while section 5(3) of the Labour Relations Act precludes another trade union from applying for certification within one year of a recognition agreement, it does not prevent the voluntarily recognized union itself from applying for certification.

The Board noted that voluntary recognition does not confer the same statutory rights as certification, such as the right to compel bargaining or access conciliation.

Therefore, the application was not barred.