Voy T. Stelmaszynski

The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the arbitrability of a grievance.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, applying the general rule that courts will not entertain judicial review of preliminary rulings while tribunal proceedings are pending, absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify bifurcating the ruling from the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had concluded that the applicant's employment was terminated for willful disobedience, which disentitled him to termination pay under O. Reg. 288/01 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review with no costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding a Ministry of Labour inspector's orders.

The inspector found the applicant in violation of O.Reg. 851/90, s.48 for stacking industrial drums without parallel planks between rows.

The applicant argued its method of staggering drums was a permitted variation under s.2 of the Regulation.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found the Board was correct in concluding that the applicant's method was not a variation but a failure to use any physical separation as required.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions and requested to set aside a Memorandum of Settlement reached at the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant claimed he signed the settlement while impaired by medication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no medical evidence of impairment and noting it lacked jurisdiction to review a settlement agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the application was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay, as the applicant waited eleven months to commence the application and another seven months to perfect it.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions excluding certain employees from a bargaining unit during a union certification process.

The Board had excluded 11 drivers based on the 'greatest attachment' test and 15 employees under the 'office and clerical' exception.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found that the Board reasonably applied the greatest attachment test given the agreed-upon geographical limitation of the bargaining unit, and reasonably concluded that the disputed employees' duties were administrative in nature.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought a stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision certifying the respondent union, pending an application for judicial review.

The central issue before the OLRB was whether the applicant was the true employer.

On the motion for a stay, the court considered whether the first branch of the test required a 'strong prima facie case' or merely a 'serious issue to be tried'.

The court held that in the context of OLRB decisions protected by strong privative clauses, the 'strong prima facie case' standard applies.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this standard, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the union.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought to have no costs awarded following an unsuccessful application and motion.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event, as there was no novel issue or public interest raised.

The court rejected the York University Faculty Association's request for substantial indemnity costs and awarded $1,500 to York University and $3,500 to the Faculty Association, payable by the applicant.

Following the dismissal of the employees' appeal regarding related employers under the Employment Standards Act, the successful respondents sought costs.

The appellants and the Director of Employment Standards argued against a costs award, citing financial hardship and the public interest nature of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to excuse the appellants on financial grounds and noted the Director could not use its statutory role to shield itself from costs after fully participating as an advocate.

However, because the appeal raised the interpretation of s. 4 of the Employment Standards Act for the first time in the court—a matter of broad public interest—the court ordered no costs.

The applicant fertility centre sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring that a 'health services integration' had occurred when the centre moved out of a hospital and hired some of the hospital's former unionized employees.

The Divisional Court applied the Dunsmuir framework to determine that the standard of review for the Board's interpretation of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 was reasonableness.

The Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusion that the centre was an integrated component of the hospital and its decision to apply the Act were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board that adjourned his unfair representation complaints against the faculty association pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and unreasonableness in the Board's decision to grant the adjournment and extend time for the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Board's discretionary decision to adjourn the premature complaints was reasonable.

The Court also noted the application was premature as the Board had not yet determined the merits of the complaints.

The appellants, former employees of a bankrupt company, sought severance and termination pay from related companies under s. 4 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the companies were related, the relationship did not have the intent or effect of defeating the purpose of the Act, as the related companies had actually propped up the bankrupt company.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision as reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of review is reasonableness and the Board's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

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 sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint of an unlawful reprisal under s. 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as well as several subsequent reconsideration decisions.

The application was brought nearly six years after the initial decision.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review post-Dunsmuir and found the Board's decisions eminently reasonable.

The Court also held that the Board's refusal to grant the self-represented applicant an adjournment on the day of the hearing was a reasonable exercise of its discretion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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

The applicant, a teacher, was removed from the occasional teachers' list after sharing conspiracy theories with students.

The union agreed to investigate a grievance but required a psychiatric assessment, which the applicant failed to provide.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the governing legislation permits the Board to use a consultation process rather than a formal hearing.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision refusing to extend the time to review an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay.

The applicant's solicitor had inadvertently missed the 30-day deadline, initiating the request six months late.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's discretionary decision reasonable given the statutory purpose of prompt resolution and the presumed prejudice of a six-month delay.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board refusing his request for an adjournment and subsequently dismissing his application for review under s. 116 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's refusal to grant the adjournment was reasonable and did not constitute a denial of natural justice.

The court noted the lateness of the request, lack of consent, prejudice to the responding parties, and the applicant's failure to obtain necessary documents in advance.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that upheld an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an order for unpaid wages.

The applicant claimed he was owed wages paid 'in kind' by a company owned by his mother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness.

The court held that the OLRB's findings—that the applicant was not an employee during the relevant period and had not established a wage rate—were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding the discharge of an employee.

The Board had found that the employee's sale of used parts and retention of the proceeds was based on a misunderstanding of workplace practice, rather than willful misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's conclusions were supported by the evidence before it.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the assignment of certain I-beam installation work to a rival union.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider twenty drawings submitted with its reply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had considered the drawings and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

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.