Voy T. Stelmaszynski

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 the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to dismiss her duty of fair representation complaint against her union due to delay.

The applicant had waited over two years after a mediated settlement to file her complaint, alleging she only later discovered adverse tax consequences and a missed pension buyback opportunity.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision to dismiss the complaint for delay without a hearing on the merits was not patently unreasonable, as the Board has jurisdiction to determine its own procedures and the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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 decision dismissing her complaint that her union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review.

The Court found that the Board was fully cognizant of the relevant facts and legal principles, and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which found that his union did not breach its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant, a temporary employee, argued the union should have pursued his wrongful dismissal grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Vice-Chair's conclusion that the union's decision not to proceed with the grievance was reasonable and entitled to deference.

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 dismissing his appeal from an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

The Board had determined that the applicant resigned and was not constructively dismissed when asked to perform grinding operations.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's conclusion was supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought an order under Rule 16.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dispense with personal service of a Notice of Application for Judicial Review and Summonses on a Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and another individual.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Vice-Chair is immune from such process and the other individual made no decision amenable to judicial review.

The court directed the applicant to amend the title of proceedings if the application is to proceed.

The applicant First Nation brought a motion to stay proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board pending judicial review.

The applicant challenged the Board's jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions regarding the applicability of labour laws to aboriginal persons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the Board lacked jurisdiction, as the Board has the concomitant jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions arising from its power to determine questions of law.

The Court also reiterated its practice of refusing to fragment administrative proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its applications for certification, termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights under s. 66 of the Labour Relations Act, and allegations of unfair labour practices under s. 53.

The Board had found that the preconditions for s. 66 were not met because the respondent union was already certified and the agreement merely expanded pre-existing bargaining rights to a new facility.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's interpretation of the Act and its factual findings regarding majority support and lack of employer support were within its specialized expertise.

Finding the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

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 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.

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.