Voy T. Stelmaszynski

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had withdrawn his grievance from arbitration due to his antagonistic and uncooperative conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was entirely reasonable and that there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision resolving a work jurisdiction dispute over stone masonry work on a construction project.

The Board had ordered the subcontractor to assign the work to the respondent union based on collective bargaining agreement obligations.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board's consideration of the employer's identity, local area practices, and the general contractor's non-party status was rational and supported by evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints of unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant had been suspended twice by his employer following work refusals.

The Board found the discipline was imposed for threats and engaging in an illegal work stoppage, not for raising safety concerns.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding no reviewable error in the Board's factual determinations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer his grievance to binding arbitration.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the Board's specialized expertise and the strong privative clauses in the Act.

The Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, thoughtful, and supported by the record, concluding the union acted reasonably and not in bad faith.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision finding that the union engaged in bad faith bargaining and imposing a remedy that affected the applicant's 'Me Too' collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness, and found that the OLRB had ample evidence and authority to fashion the remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his application for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by deciding the matter on the issue of delay without giving the applicant an opportunity to address it.

The applicant's own delay in applying for judicial review was satisfactorily explained by his impecuniosity.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further consideration.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the Employment Standards Act awarding the respondent employee vacation pay for his last two years of employment.

The employer argued the employee had ample down time during the winter months to take vacation in lieu of pay.

The adjudicator found the employee worked year-round and was entitled to vacation pay.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, found no palpable or overriding error in the adjudicator's findings, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing her complaint that the union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant alleged the union failed to incorporate an agreed term regarding the repayment of Employment Insurance premiums into a settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found the Board's conclusion that the written memorandum reflected the final settlement was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision finding them to be related employers under section 12 of the Employment Standards Act, making them liable for termination and severance pay to employees of One + One Fashions Inc. The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review.

The court found that the adjudicator reasonably applied the established criteria, concluding that the applicants had significant operational and financial control over the related business, and that the arrangement had the effect of defeating the true intent and purpose of the Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision finding them liable as related employers for termination and severance pay owed to employees of a related business under the Employment Standards Act.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court upheld the adjudicator's decision.

The Court found that the adjudicator reasonably applied the established criteria for related employer liability, noting the applicants' significant financial and operational control over the related business.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.