Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), (1984) 2 O.A.C. 227 (DC)

Judge:Henry, J.
Court:Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
Case Date:February 13, 1984
Jurisdiction:Ontario
Citations:(1984), 2 O.A.C. 227 (DC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Consol.-Bathurst Packaging v. IWA (1984), 2 O.A.C. 227 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Ontario Labour Relations Board

Indexed As: Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.)

Ontario Divisional Court

Henry, J.

February 13, 1984.

Summary:

An employer applied for a stay of a hearing pending before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3290

Judicial review - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Considerations, balance of convenience - The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that an employer violated s. 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to disclose, in the course of collective bargaining, that the employer intended to close a plant - The board fixed a date to hear the issue of damages - The employer applied for a stay of the board's hearing respecting damages because, inter alia, the board's decision on liability was under judicial review - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the balance of convenience required the dismissal of the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3285

Judicial review - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - What applicant must establish - The Ontario Divisional Court referred to what an applicant must establish on an application for a stay of proceedings pending before a government board - See paragraph 10.

Labour Law - Topic 403

Labour Relations Boards and judicial review - Duty to avoid delay - The Ontario Divisional Court stated that labour relations delayed are labour relations defeated or denied - See paragraph 15.

Cases Noticed:

American Cyanamid v. Ethicon, [1975] A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 10].

Yuill v. Atlantic Pizza Delight, 17 O.R.(2d) 505 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 10].

Wells Fargo Armcar Inc. v. O.L.R.B. (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 99, refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 244, sect. 4 [para. 8].

Counsel:

W.R. Herridge, Q.C., for the applicant;

Paul J.J. Cavalluzzo, for the respondent union;

Ian Scott, Q.C. and N.V. Dissanayake, for O.L.R.B.

This application was heard by Henry, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of Henry, J., was delivered orally and released on February 13, 1984.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP