Sheilagh Turkington

The applicant, a federal Crown corporation, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Board of Inquiry adding it as a respondent to a human rights complaint.

The complainant alleged that the rent calculation formula for social assistance recipients in her co-operative housing, mandated by the applicant's funding agreement, was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's order, holding that the applicant's imposition of funding conditions was a valid exercise of the federal spending power under s. 91(1A) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court applied the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, finding that provincial human rights legislation must be read down so as not to impair the essential powers of a federal agency carrying out its core functions.

The complainant and the respondent co-operative housing provider brought a motion to add the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) as a respondent to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in accommodation based on receipt of public assistance.

CMHC opposed the motion, arguing that as a federal Crown agent exercising the federal spending power, it was immune from provincial human rights legislation.

The Board of Inquiry held that CMHC's status as a Crown agent did not immunize it from the application of provincial law, and that the provision of funding to the co-operative did not bring the matter of accommodation within exclusive federal legislative authority.

The Board found it had jurisdiction over CMHC and the subject matter, and ordered CMHC added as a party respondent.

The applicant employer assigned the maintenance, repair, and inspection of a newly installed Pfaff screw hoist to millwrights from the ATU.

The IAM disputed this assignment, claiming the work based on past practice with a previous hoist.

The Board found that both unions had members qualified to do the work and that past practice was mixed.

Ultimately, the Board upheld the employer's assignment to the ATU, finding it justified by economy and efficiency considerations, including the ATU members' prior experience with similar hoists and a shared management structure.

The Board issued an amended and corrected decision regarding a jurisdictional dispute between the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Lodge 235 over work assigned by the Toronto Transit Commission.

The decision corrected the panel composition from a previous decision.

The Board confirmed that it would not change the assignment of the work in dispute, declaring that the work belongs to the ATU.

The Toronto Transit Commission brought a jurisdictional dispute concerning the assignment of work on a new sandblasting machine at the Hillcrest shop.

The work was assigned to the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, but the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Lodge 235 claimed the work should have gone to its members.

The Board considered factors including past practice, economy, and efficiency.

The Board found that employer preference, economy, and efficiency favoured the assignment to the ATU members, as taking the work from them would disrupt an integrated production process and increase costs.

The Board upheld the assignment of the work to the ATU.

The applicant, a health care aide, was discharged for allegedly leaving work early and having a co-worker swipe her time card.

The union investigated the grievance but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration, leading the applicant to file a duty of fair representation complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that while the union's investigation was deficient in several respects, including a misunderstanding of how the card swipe system worked, these errors amounted to honest mistakes rather than gross negligence.

The Board concluded that the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the application.