W.J. Hayter

The parties reached a settlement.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal without costs.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) and a sale of business declaration under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concerning Sobeys and several of its franchisees.

The franchisees acknowledged they were successors under section 69 and bound by the collective agreement.

The union argued that Sobeys exercised such extensive control over the franchisees, particularly Category 3 franchisees, that they should be considered a single employer.

The Board found that while Sobeys exercised significant financial control to protect its loans and maintain franchise standards, the franchisees operated as independent businesses with control over their own labour relations.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration, noting the absence of anti-union animus and finding that the union's bargaining rights were not eroded by the franchise arrangements.

The section 1(4) application was dismissed, and the section 69 declaration was granted.

The appellant company appealed an order allowing the respondent union's claim to proceed in court, arguing that an arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute based on the Weber principle.

Previously, the union had filed a grievance, but the appellant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction, leading the arbitrator to dismiss the grievance.

The union then sought relief from the Unemployment Insurance Commission and subsequently the courts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue of arbitrability was res judicata due to the arbitrator's final decision and a previous court ruling.

The appellant was precluded from re-litigating the jurisdictional issue or raising new evidence that could have been presented earlier with due diligence.

An application was brought to determine whether the secretary to the chief of police and the secretary to the deputy chief of police of the Brockville Police Force are "senior officers" under Section 30 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission found that the secretary to the chief of police qualifies as a senior officer because her duties involve highly confidential matters related to budget preparation, negotiations, and discipline.

However, the Commission ruled that the secretary to the deputy chief of police does not qualify as a senior officer, as it is not necessary for the good management of the force for her to be privy to such confidential information, which could be handled by the chief's secretary.

The applicant union and respondent university sought the Board's approval for an alternative dispute resolution procedure to resolve approximately 650 challenges to the inclusion of certain persons in the proposed bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The procedure involved the appointment of a Vice-Chair to assist the parties and make rulings that would constitute settlements.

The Board approved the procedure, finding it fell within its authority under section 103(2)(h) of the Act to authorize a Vice-Chair to inquire into a matter and report back to the panel.