Stephen Shore

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to certify a union for a bargaining unit of employees at a specific hotel location.

The employer argued the bargaining unit was inappropriate due to employee interchange across multiple locations and that the Board denied procedural fairness by excluding certain casual employees without an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's determination of the bargaining unit and employee status was reasonable and fell within its core expertise.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness, as the Board provided ample opportunity for written submissions.

The applicant employer sought a stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for a group of its employees, pending judicial review.

The employer argued it would suffer irreparable harm by being forced to choose between pursuing judicial review or complying with its obligation to bargain in good faith, and by expending unrecoverable resources on collective bargaining.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the employer could bargain in good faith while reserving its rights pending judicial review, and that mutual, unremarkable process costs do not constitute irreparable harm.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, specifically related to her pregnancies and subsequent leaves.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove several personal respondents from the application.

The applicant consented to the removal of two respondents but opposed the removal of two others, Jarrett and Melanson.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the remaining personal respondents, finding that their alleged conduct fell within the normal course of their employment and that the corporate respondent had accepted liability for their actions should discrimination be found.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the applicant's human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that her prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) complaint appropriately dealt with the substance of her allegations.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on sex and pregnancy.

The Tribunal found that while the ESA complaint was a 'proceeding' under section 45.1, the ESA officer's decision focused on reprisal for taking statutory leaves and did not address the broader allegations of discrimination based on sex and pregnancy, including alleged disparaging remarks.

The request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex (pregnancy and parental leave) following the conclusion of a related Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The request to reactivate was filed outside the 60-day timeframe.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to reactivate, noting the short delay and lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal deferred the respondents' request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code, directing the applicant to advise whether she wished to make oral submissions on the issue.