William Stephen Challis

Two newspaper reporters applied for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner upholding the refusal by the Police and the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose various police records.

The requested records included the names of all police officers, public complaints data, disciplinary tribunal dockets, and criminal charges against officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Inquiry Officers' decisions applying exemptions for safety, privacy, and employment-related matters were reasonable and correct.

The complainant requested an adjournment of the human rights proceedings pending an application for judicial review of a prior decision that confirmed the adjudicator's jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Commission and the respondents opposed the adjournment.

The adjudicator granted the adjournment, finding that the balance of convenience favoured it because a successful judicial review would require the entire matter to be reheard, and there was a possibility of minimizing delay by having the judicial review heard together with a similar pending case.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had to determine whether the 'Gilvesy test' applied to determine which employees should be included in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the count, particularly concerning off-site mechanics under section 117(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the Gilvesy test applies, meaning employees must have spent a majority of their time on the date of application performing bargaining unit work.

The Board found no conflict between this test and section 117(b).

Applying this test, the Board determined the status of six disputed individuals, including some on the list of employees and excluding others based on their duties on the application date.

The complainant, a registered nurse, filed complaints against her trade union and employer alleging violations of the Labour Relations Act, including a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint without a hearing on the merits, arguing it did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the complaint raised complex questions of fact and law that were inappropriate to determine as a preliminary matter, though it dismissed the section 64 allegation for lack of standing.

The complainant, a third-party contractor, sought relief under sections 89, 92, and 135 of the Labour Relations Act after its work was interrupted by a picket line established by the respondent unions.

The picket line was related to a dispute involving the Toronto Transit Commission, which was governed by the special Transit Labour Disputes Act.

The Board held that the special Act exhaustively enumerated the remedies available for its enforcement, which did not include sections 89 or 135 of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the section 89 and 135 complaints for lack of jurisdiction and directed the complainant to advise if it wished to proceed with the section 92 application.

The union applied for certification.

The employer argued that membership evidence collected by an employee, Mr. Pyle, should be discounted because he threatened other employees with job loss if they did not sign union cards.

The Board found that Mr. Pyle did make such threats.

As a result, the Board declined to give full weight to the membership evidence and ordered a representation vote to ascertain the true wishes of the employees.

One Board member dissented, arguing that employers should not be permitted to participate in certification hearings regarding membership evidence.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for employers in the sewers and watermains sector.

The respondent and interveners challenged the applicant's status, arguing it was not a properly constituted employers' organization under the Labour Relations Act due to alleged defects in its by-laws and their enactment.

The Board found that the applicant was an employers' organization within the meaning of the Act and that its by-laws were properly enacted.

The Board held that imposing additional pre-conditions for accreditation based on internal by-law provisions would exceed its jurisdiction, and concluded the applicant was a properly constituted organization.

During a hearing into allegations of unlawful picketing, the complainant called an adverse party as a witness and sought to cross-examine him as of right, relying on Rule 53.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to adopt the civil rule, holding that it would instead apply the common law discretion to permit leading questions or cross-examination only if the witness demonstrates hostility or an unwillingness to answer.

The Board also ruled that section 9 of the Ontario Evidence Act does not prevent the witness's answers from being used against him in the very proceeding in which he is testifying, as the statutory protection against self-incrimination applies only to independent contemporaneous or subsequent proceedings.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation and violated voting procedures under the Labour Relations Act during a contract ratification meeting.

The union presented a combined ballot asking employees to either accept the company's final offer or authorize a strike, and refused requests to split the ballot.

The Board found that the union was entitled to structure the ballot to reflect the collective bargaining reality and bring negotiations to a head.

The Board also dismissed allegations of intimidation and found that, despite defects in the notice of the meeting, no employees were deprived of the opportunity to vote.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that the grievance concerning a safety and attendance bonus arose after the expiry of both the collective agreement and the statutory freeze period.

The trade union contended that the right to the bonus accrued during the agreement and freeze period.

The Board advised the Minister that he has the authority to appoint an arbitrator, as the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to interpret the collective agreement and determine whether the grievance is arbitrable and valid.

The complainants sought a cease and desist order and damages, alleging the respondents engaged in unlawful picketing and strikes to prevent the employer from operating with members of the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

The respondents moved to strike the claims, arguing the alleged unlawful conduct had ceased months prior.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no overriding labour-relations purpose to decline hearing the application or limiting the potential remedies before hearing the evidence.

The applicant union filed an application alleging a sale of business and related employer status between the respondents.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case and demanding further particulars.

The Board held that the application made out a prima facie case and that the statutory reverse onus provisions limit the extent to which an applicant must particularize facts exclusively within the respondents' knowledge.

However, the Board directed the applicant to provide further particulars regarding specific allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also deferred ruling on the intervener's status until it adduced evidence of a valid collective agreement.