Stephen J. Shamie

The applicant union sought judicial review of two interlocutory arbitration decisions concerning the termination of an employee.

The respondent hospital argued the applications were premature because the arbitration process was not yet complete.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances justified judicial intervention before the arbitrator had issued a final decision on the merits.

The applications for judicial review were dismissed as premature.

The applicant players' association brought an urgent application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision declaring himself functus officio.

The arbitrator had refused to make a decision in accordance with the court's earlier reasons quashing his previous decision regarding a player's contract option.

The court granted the application, abridged the time for service, declared the arbitrator was not functus, and remitted the matter back to him to render a decision on the basis that the respondent club did not validly exercise the option to require the player to play a third year.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision holding that a player was contractually obligated to play a third season for the respondent football club.

The union argued the contract was voidable because the club negotiated with an unregistered contract advisor, and that the club's exercise of the option year was unclear.

The court granted leave to hear the application as a single judge due to urgency.

The court found the arbitrator's decision not to void the contract was reasonable.

However, the court quashed the arbitrator's decision regarding the option year, finding that the letter sent to the player was confusing and did not clearly exercise the option.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award denying her independent standing in a grievance arbitration concerning her alleged breach of a settlement agreement's non-disclosure provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the union had exclusive carriage of the matter and that any complaints regarding the union's representation should be directed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Court also held that the application for judicial review was premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying her standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision on standing was both reasonable and correct.

The court further held that without standing, the applicant could not raise the issue of bias.

The court noted prematurity might also be a ground for dismissal but reserved definitive findings for written reasons to follow.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to defer the human rights application alleging age discrimination pending the resolution of a concurrent complaint filed with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the grievance were essentially the same as those in the application.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and ensure the orderly administration of justice.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 17 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union contended that the bargaining process for the most recent collective agreement was tainted by bad faith and material misrepresentation.

Following a lengthy hearing, the majority of the Board found no breach of the Act and dismissed the complaint, with one Board Member dissenting.

The Board issued a bottom-line decision to allow the parties to proceed with their collective bargaining relationship, with reasons to follow.

The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding party union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because a lawful strike was ongoing.

Although a memorandum of agreement had been signed and most employees had returned to work, 20 employees remained off work pursuant to the strike on the application date.

The Board found that a strike was still in effect and that the statute does not require a complete cessation of work or disruption for a strike to continue.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A vote was held and the ballot box was sealed.

Following a hearing, the Board orally dismissed the application as untimely and directed that the ballots be destroyed without being counted.

Written reasons were to follow.

The responding company in an unfair labour practice complaint brought a motion for a pre-pleading production order against the Pension Commission of Ontario, a non-party.

The company sought access to records and submissions to assist in preparing its response to the complaint.

The Board dismissed the motion, holding that pre-pleading production from a non-party is inappropriate and amounts to a fishing expedition.

The Board also vacated two summonses issued to a Commission official, finding them defective and premature.

A public sector employee challenged a Rand formula dues check-off clause and related statutory provisions, arguing that compulsory union dues used for political and social causes violated the Charter.

The Court held that the Charter applied because the dues obligation arose through government action involving a Crown-controlled public sector employer.

A majority dismissed the appeal, concluding there was no infringement of freedom of expression and no basis for relief under freedom of association, although the judges differed significantly on whether s. 2(d) included protection against compelled association and whether any prima facie infringement occurred.

The decision is a leading authority on Charter application to public sector labour relations, compelled association, and the constitutional treatment of mandatory union dues.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

During the hearing, the Board ruled that evidence of discussions with a mediator and a Board Officer was inadmissible due to statutory confidentiality and settlement privilege.

The union subsequently asserted that a settlement had been reached, causing the respondent's counsel to become a potential witness.

The respondent requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The Board granted the adjournment, holding that the 30-day time limit in section 40a(2) of the Labour Relations Act is directory rather than mandatory, and that natural justice required the adjournment.

A dissenting Board member argued the time limits should be considered mandatory.