9 total
Judicial review of labour board decision dismissed due to undue delay and reasonable findings.
The applicant sought judicial review of a 1997 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints against his union under sections 74 and 76 of the Labour Relations Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the four-and-a-half-year delay in bringing the application was undue and inadequately explained.
Furthermore, applying the patent unreasonableness standard of review, the court held that the Board's conclusion that the union had not acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith was not patently unreasonable.
The applicant also failed to exhaust alternative remedies regarding the section 76 claim.
Respondents awarded $4,500 in costs for the motion; no costs ordered for the cross-motion.
The court issued an endorsement concerning costs following a motion and cross-motion.
Taking into account the decision relating to punitive damages and the lack of a decision on the motion for security for costs, the respondents were awarded $4,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST for the motion.
No costs were ordered for the cross-motion.
Motion to extend time to appeal order striking statement of claim for malicious prosecution dismissed.
The moving party, a former teacher, sought an extension of time to appeal an order striking out his statement of claim against the responding parties for malicious prosecution, slander, and intentional infliction of harm.
The claims arose after students accused him of soliciting bribes, leading to criminal charges of which he was acquitted.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish a firm intention to appeal within the time limit and that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the statement of claim failed to plead sufficient facts to support the causes of action.
Union's inaccurate estimate of bargaining unit size was based on honest belief, not fraud.
The employer alleged that the union obtained its certification by fraud because it estimated 57 employees in the bargaining unit on its application, despite the employer previously stating there were 64.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test for fraud from Derry v. Peek, which requires a false representation made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly.
The Board found that the union representatives had an honest belief in their estimate, which was based on a practical assessment by the chief steward.
The Board concluded that the union's conduct did not amount to fraud and upheld the certificate.
Arbitration board's conditional reinstatement of a teacher who wrote threatening letters was patently unreasonable.
The appellant Board of Education discharged a teacher after he wrote abusive and threatening letters to the Board's administration.
The teacher grieved the dismissal, and a majority of the arbitration board ordered his conditional reinstatement, finding his conduct was temporary due to stress.
The Divisional Court quashed the award, but the Court of Appeal restored it.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that the arbitration board's decision was patently unreasonable.
The evidence overwhelmingly showed the teacher's conduct was not temporary and that he was unfit to return to the classroom.
The appeal was allowed and the arbitration award quashed.
Board dismisses Charter challenge to English/French ballots but orders hearing on union fraud allegation.
The union applied for certification and won a representation vote.
The employer challenged the vote on three grounds: that the 40% threshold for ordering the vote should have been based on the actual number of employees rather than the union's estimate; that the union committed fraud by intentionally understating the number of employees in its application; and that providing ballots only in English and French violated the section 15 Charter rights of an employee who misunderstood the ballot due to language difficulties.
The Board dismissed the 40% threshold and Charter arguments, finding that the statute permits reliance on the union's estimate and that language difficulties do not constitute discrimination under section 15.
However, the Board found an arguable case for fraud and scheduled a hearing on that issue.
Board has jurisdiction over work assignment dispute despite potential overlap with Education Act violations.
The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the employer improperly assigned occasional teacher work to members of another union.
The employer and the responding union argued that the dispute involved interpreting the Education Act and should be left to the Minister of Education.
The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve work assignment disputes, even if the assignment might also violate another statute.
The Board directed the parties to file lists of tasks, witnesses, and evidence in preparation for a hearing.
Production of medical documents ordered subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
The applicant requested production of certain documents.
The respondent did not dispute relevance but argued that health legislation and professional obligations imposed standards of confidentiality on health professionals regarding medical information.
The Board ordered the respondent to produce the documents, subject to an agreement that they would only be disclosed to the Board and counsel, who must preserve their confidentiality.
Union did not breach duty to bargain in good faith by insisting on single province-wide agreement.
The complainant employer association alleged that the respondent union breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.
The union had insisted on a single province-wide collective agreement for the elevator industry and refused to negotiate a separate agreement for non-ICI work, while negotiating separate non-ICI agreements with individual employers during a lawful strike.
The Board found that the union was bargaining within the scope of its rights and did not violate the Act by pressing its position to impasse or by making interim agreements with individual employers.
The complaint was dismissed.
