Stephen Wahl

The plaintiff, a cargo handler at Pearson International Airport, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain picketing by the defendant union, which was engaged in a legal strike against a neighbouring employer.

The plaintiff was not a party to the labour dispute but its operations were disrupted.

The court found that the plaintiff met the test for an interlocutory injunction, relying on issue estoppel from a previous injunction granted to the airport authority.

However, the court declined to grant the broader injunction sought by the plaintiff, instead limiting the order to the terms of the existing picketing protocol established in the previous order.

In an addendum to a previous decision allowing the appeal and restoring the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision, the Court of Appeal clarified the timeline for an estoppel period.

Responding to a letter from the respondent's counsel, the court confirmed its intention that the new two-year estoppel period originally set by the OLRB would start again on the date of the court's decision.

The appellant unions appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling.

The Board had admitted a photocopy of the 1958 Sarnia Working Agreement into evidence as a business record and ancient document, finding it created province-wide bargaining rights binding the respondent employer.

The Board also found the unions were estopped from enforcing the agreement for two years due to representations made in 2000.

The Divisional Court ruled the document inadmissible and substituted a permanent estoppel.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court failed to show deference to the Board's evidentiary rulings and remedial discretion, restoring the Board's original decision.

The Union appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision.

The OLRB vice-chair had ruled that he had jurisdiction under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to extend the time for referring a grievance to arbitration, despite the mandatory 14-day time limit in the collective agreement having expired.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable, holding that once the time limit expired, the grievance was deemed settled and there was nothing left to refer to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Union's appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court that the OLRB's interpretation of s. 133 was unreasonable and that the OLRB cannot ignore the express mandatory timelines in a collective agreement.

The applicant unions sought judicial review of an interim decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding card-based certification.

The employer had provided lists of employees for two prospective bargaining units with 24 overlapping names.

The unions agreed between themselves on how to allocate the overlapping workers and argued the employer was bound by this agreement.

The Board ruled the employer was not a party to the agreement and ordered the employer to provide an unqualified list.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with its jurisprudence.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring that the applicant and a predecessor school board were a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act and its regulations precluded the Board from making such a declaration and limited the geographic scope of the unions' bargaining rights.

The Divisional Court held that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The majority found that the Board's interpretation of the interplay between the statutes, which preserved its discretion under s. 1(4), was not clearly irrational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review to set aside grievance awards, arguing the arbitrator erred by acting as both mediator and arbitrator and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias during mediation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Labour Relations Act expressly permits an arbitrator to act as a mediator with the parties' consent, which was given here.

The court also held that the arbitrator's tentative opinion expressed during mediation did not meet the high threshold for establishing bias.

The company TCT became insolvent and an interim receiver, KPMG, was appointed.

The order appointing KPMG stated it could not be considered a successor employer and prohibited proceedings against it without leave.

KPMG terminated unionized employees and sold assets to a new company, which hired some employees without union representation.

The union sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to bring a successor employer application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to determine successor employer status, which belongs exclusively to the labour board.

The Court also held that the traditional Mancini test applies to s. 215 leave applications, requiring only a prima facie case, and granted the union leave to proceed.

The debtor company became insolvent and an interim receiver was appointed.

The receiver terminated all employees but continued operations to sell the business as a going concern.

The union sought to bring successor employer proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The bankruptcy judge denied leave under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while s. 47(2) of the BIA does not authorize a bankruptcy court to determine successor employer status, s. 215 gives the court jurisdiction to deny leave to proceed before the OLRB based on bankruptcy considerations.

However, the bankruptcy judge erred by effectively determining the successor employer issue himself.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the bankruptcy court.

The union brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that amended a receivership order to protect the receiver from successor employer status and denied the union leave to proceed against the receiver before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the legal issues regarding the relationship between bankruptcy courts and labour boards, and the status of a receiver as a successor employer, were significant to commercial practice and warranted consideration by the appellate court.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the repainting and repair of a water tower by the respondent employer was maintenance work, not work in the construction industry.

The union argued the Board used the wrong definition and denied natural justice by refusing to hear evidence about a different project.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the excluded evidence was irrelevant, meaning there was no denial of natural justice.

The Union applied for judicial review of an arbitration board decision that dismissed its grievances concerning contracting out and refused to issue a single employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board did not deny natural justice by refusing further document production, and that its decisions on the single employer issue and the interpretation of the collective agreement were not patently unreasonable.

The applicant Ironworkers filed two jurisdictional dispute complaints regarding work assigned by the employer to the Millwrights.

The first complaint involved repair and maintenance of slat conveyors at a Toyota plant, which the Board upheld as correctly assigned to the Millwrights based on area practice and the International Agreement.

The second complaint involved the installation of an overhead mono-rail conveyor at a Budd plant.

The Board found the employer incorrectly assigned all phase 2 work to the Millwrights, holding that the work should have been assigned in accordance with the conveyor agreement, which would have allocated a portion of the work to the Ironworkers.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Board determined the voter eligibility of several individuals.

The Board found that a working foreman did not exercise managerial functions as he lacked authority to hire, fire, or grant wage increases, and was therefore an employee entitled to vote.

The Board also determined that operating a compressor and moving scaffolding for painters fell within the union's work jurisdiction, making those employees eligible to vote.

However, an employee performing general site clean-up was performing labourers' work and was ineligible to vote.

In an unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaint regarding the end-tailing of seniority following a corporate amalgamation, the applicant sought production of legal opinions and advice provided to the responding union.

The responding union claimed solicitor-client privilege over advice concerning strategy and negotiations, while conceding waiver regarding the legality of end-tailing.

The Board held that by pleading reliance on legal advice to establish the bona fides of its decision to end-tail seniority, the responding union impliedly waived privilege over all related legal advice, including recommended options and strategies.

Production of the documents was ordered.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the responding party contractor violated the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting the delivery and stockpiling of drywall to a non-union supplier.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis of res judicata or issue estoppel, relying on a prior Board decision (*Four Seasons Drywall*) which held that the delivery of drywall to a jobsite stockpile by a supplier was not construction work covered by the collective agreement.

The Board applied the test for issue estoppel and found that the same issue had been finally decided in the prior case involving the same union and supplier.

The Board concluded it should not relitigate the issue of whether delivery of drywall constitutes construction work, and dismissed the grievance.

During the continuation of a hearing, the applicants sought to introduce Land Titles Office abstracts into evidence to challenge the testimony of witnesses regarding property ownership.

The responding parties objected on the basis that the documents had not been produced prior to the hearing as required by a previous Board order.

The Board sustained the objection, finding that the applicants failed to comply with the production order and provided no grounds for granting leave to introduce the documents at this stage.

A subsequent request to reconsider the ruling was also dismissed.

The applicant union brought an application under subsection 1(4) and section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that a corporate amalgamation of several construction companies into a single entity, BFC Construction Group Inc., constituted a sale of a business.

The union argued that the entire amalgamated corporation was bound by the pre-existing collective agreements.

The responding parties conceded that a sale of business or related employer declaration might be appropriate but argued that the collective agreements should only bind the specific divisions that formerly constituted the predecessor companies.

The Board held that a corporate amalgamation is a sale of a business under section 69.

The Board further held that a division of a corporation can be a 'person' to whom a business is sold under section 69(2).

The Board directed further hearings to determine factually whether the business was transferred to the entire corporation or only to specific divisions.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification immediately after being granted leave to withdraw its first application.

The responding party employer argued that the withdrawal decision was a nullity because it was made without seeking submissions, and requested that the Board impose a bar on the second application and award costs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the employer's arguments, finding no breach of natural justice in the withdrawal process.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding no abuse of process, and confirmed it lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The second application was permitted to proceed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry.

The responding party employer and the intervenor union argued that the application was untimely because a valid project agreement already covered the proposed bargaining unit.

The applicant challenged the validity of the project agreement under section 58(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing it was either invalid, never implemented, or abandoned.

The Board directed the parties to provide written submissions on the section 58(1) issue and ordered the Registrar to set continuation dates for the hearing.