Stephen Peglar

Property owners brought an application seeking a declaration that they could enforce obligations under a private road maintenance agreement and compel mediation or arbitration regarding disputes about maintenance.

The respondents argued there was no privity of contract because the applicants were not parties to the same agreement.

The court held that the developer’s scheme of entering identical agreements with each purchaser, combined with an enurement clause binding successors and assigns, demonstrated an intention that the purchasers benefit from and enforce the obligations relating to road maintenance.

Alternatively, the court found the circumstances satisfied the third‑party beneficiary test articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The applicants were declared entitled to rely on the agreement and to require mediation or arbitration concerning road maintenance disputes.

The applicant sought review of an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an order for termination pay.

The employer claimed the applicant was temporarily laid off and subsequently resigned after finding new employment.

The Board found that the employer initially intended an indefinite layoff, which constitutes termination under the Employment Standards Act, and only altered the Record of Employment to indicate a recall date to avoid paying termination pay.

The application was allowed, and the employer was ordered to pay five weeks' termination pay plus vacation pay.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees sought to extend the terminal date to admit two late handwritten statements of objection.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, finding that the employees had ample opportunity to read the posted notices and file their objections in a timely manner.

As the union had the requisite membership support on the terminal date, the Board granted certification without a representation vote.