William Patrick Dermody

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the respondent pedestrian and her cohabitant were not spouses, which would have shifted liability for her accident benefits to the cohabitant's insurer.

The respondent and her cohabitant had lived together for over a decade but maintained separate finances, did not share a bedroom, and denied being romantically involved.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the arbitrator's application of the Molodowich criteria or his conclusion that the relationship was a close friendship rather than a conjugal one.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from Allstate, the insurer of the vehicle that struck her.

Allstate argued that the applicant was the spouse of her roommate, who was insured by Belair, and therefore Belair should pay the benefits.

The arbitrator applied the Molodowich factors and found that the applicant and her roommate were merely friends sharing accommodation, not spouses living in a conjugal relationship.

Allstate was found responsible for paying the applicant's statutory accident benefits.

The complainant alleged that the Mayor of Hamilton discriminated against him based on sexual orientation by refusing to issue a proclamation for Gay and Lesbian Pride Week.

The Board of Inquiry found that a mayoral proclamation is a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, as it is generally perceived as a benefit to the groups seeking it.

The Board held that the Mayor's refusal, though purportedly motivated by a desire to protect the gay and lesbian community from homophobic backlash, was paternalistic and constituted discrimination.

The Board further found that the City of Hamilton was neither directly nor vicariously liable for the Mayor's actions, as issuing proclamations falls outside his statutory duties as Chief Executive Officer.

The Mayor was ordered to pay $5,000 in compensation for injury to dignity and to issue the proclamation if requested in 1995.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the employer's owner and his brother made threats of closure and job loss if the union was successful, and subsequently terminated one employee and constructively dismissed another due to anti-union animus.

Given the severity of the employer's breaches of the Labour Relations Act, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.

The union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees sought reconsideration of a prior Board decision finding their petitions opposing certification to be untimely.

The Board allowed the reconsideration, finding the petitions were timely as they were deposited with Canada Post on the terminal date, despite bearing the next day's registration stamp.

However, upon inquiring into the voluntariness of the petitions, the Board found they were not a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

The petitions were initiated and circulated by a working foreman who was perceived to be acting on behalf of the employer and who made threats regarding job security.

As the petitions were given no weight, the union was entitled to certification.