William G. Shanks

The appellant appealed an order under The Hague Convention requiring a child to be returned to Australia so Australian courts could assume jurisdiction over custody and access.

The trial judge found the child was habitually resident in Australia based on the appellant's declarations and actions indicating a settled intention to stay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the trial judge correctly applied the jurisprudence and that the evidence fully supported the habitual residence finding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Hemlo Gold Mines Inc. A group of employees intervened, seeking to file petitions opposing the union after the application filing date.

The intervenors argued that the Board's rules regarding the certification application date and notice to employees violated the rules of natural justice and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Board dismissed the intervenors' motions, finding that the Labour Relations Act clearly established the application filing date as the certification application date, and that the statutory provisions did not violate the Charter.

The Board also dismissed a motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finding that over 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit had applied to become members of the union on or before the certification application date, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

During a hearing for a decertification application, the intervener employer brought a motion requesting that the panel and the entire Board disqualify themselves on the grounds of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion was based on the Board's decision to raise the issue of the applicant's status and its direction that the employer proceed first to lead evidence regarding the circumstances of hiring.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that inquiring into the applicant's status was part of its statutory mandate under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act, and that directing the employer to lead evidence first was a procedural decision aimed at fairness and expedition, which did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 and/or section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a lease with an option to purchase a closed brick and tile manufacturing facility constituted a sale of a business from the former owners to the new operators.

The Board found that no business was sold, as the facility had been closed for years, required significant modifications, and no goodwill or customer lists were transferred.

The section 63 application was dismissed, and consequently, a related termination application was also dismissed.