International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1739 v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers et al., (2007) 225 O.A.C. 341 (DC)

• Judge: Lane, Swinton and M.G.J. Quigley, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: June 22, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2007), 225 O.A.C. 341 (DC)

IBEW v. IBEW (2007), 225 O.A.C. 341 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.074

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1739 (applicant) v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Guild Electric Limited and Ontario Labour Relations Board (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario (intervenor)

(202/06)

Indexed As: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1739 v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Lane, Swinton and M.G.J. Quigley, JJ.

June 22, 2007.

Summary:

A parent trade union assumed the jurisdiction of one of its locals in respect of a specific construction job. The local filed an unfair labour practices complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the parent had just cause to act as it did. The local applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 224

The hearing and decision - Right to be heard - What constitutes being heard - A construction union local filed an unfair labour practices complaint against its parent - Concerned that the matter would become moot because of the upcoming end of the backdrop construction job and of the workers' employment, the Ontario Labour Relations Board decided to hold a consultation, as provided by its Rule 41 respecting expedited proceedings, rather than a full hearing - The Board had extensive pleadings and other documents before it - It heard two days of oral submissions - The Board concluded that it had sufficient material to render a decision - The local was not allowed to call evidence or cross-examine - The Board dismissed the complaint - The Ontario Divisional Court upheld the decision - The Board did not deny the local an opportunity to be heard, complied with its duty of procedural fairness, and did not exceed its jurisdiction by proceeding on the basis of the material before it - See paragraphs 53 to 75.

Administrative Law - Topic 2402

Natural justice - Procedure - General - Duty of fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 224 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7525

Delegated powers - Validity of delegated powers - Rules or regulations - Ultra vires - [See Labour Law - Topic 522 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7565

Delegated powers - Subdelegation of powers - Prohibition against delegation by a delegate (delegatus non potest delegare) - [See Labour Law - Topic 522 ].

Labour Law - Topic 522

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - Power to administer legislation and make regulations - A construction union local filed an unfair labour practices complaint against its parent - The Ontario Labour Relations Board decided to hold a consultation, as provided by its Rule 41 respecting expedited proceedings - The Rule had been made by the Board's chair pursuant to s. 110(18) of the Labour Relations Act (Ont.) - Rule 41 authorized the Board to set terms, issue practice directions, lengthen or shorten a time period, limit the parties' opportunities to present their evidence or their submissions, etc. - The Board dismissed the local's complaint - The local sought judicial review, arguing that Rule 41 was ultra vires as being an impermissible sub-delegation or inconsistent with the Act - The Ontario Divisional Court rejected the argument and dismissed the application - See paragraphs 35 to 45.

Labour Law - Topic 603

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Provincial boards - Acting in excess of jurisdiction - [See Administrative Law - Topic 224 ].

Labour Law - Topic 604

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Provincial boards - Whether decision patently unreasonable - One month before a construction job ended, a parent trade union assumed the jurisdiction that one of its locals had over the job - The parent was dealing with performance, attitude and recruitment problems concerning the local - The local filed an unfair labour practices complaint - At issue was whether the parent had, as provided by s. 147 of the Labour Relations Act (Ont.), just cause to assume the jurisdiction of its local - Concerned that the matter would become moot given the upcoming end of the job and of the workers' employment, the Ontario Labour Relations Board decided to hold a consultation, as provided by its Rule 41 respecting expedited proceedings, rather than a full hearing - The Board dismissed the complaint, ruling that the parent had just cause to assume jurisdiction - The Ontario Divisional Court upheld, as not patently unreasonable, both the decision to hold a consultation and the decision dismissing the complaint - See paragraphs 90 to 111.

Labour Law - Topic 665

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Natural justice - Denial of - Hearing - Opportunity to be heard - [See Administrative Law - Topic 224 ].

Labour Law - Topic 830

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Procedure - Decision - General (incl. sufficiency of) - The Ontario Labour Relations Board held a consultation, as provided by its Rule 41, rather than a full hearing and held that a parent trade union had just cause, as provided by s. 147 of the Labour Relations Act (Ont.) to assume the jurisdiction of one of its locals in respect of a construction job - The local sought judicial review, arguing that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons - The Ontario Divisional Court rejected the argument and dismissed the application - After indicating that there was no requirement to give reasons under the Act, the court held that the Board's reasons would be adequate if they provided the basis for meaningful judicial review, in this case, on a standard of patent unreasonableness - The Board did outline the foundation for its decision and explain how and why it concluded as it did - It provided a sufficient explanation of the process it was engaged in, the conclusions it reached, on what it founded those conclusions, and the result of its conclusions - The Board did so with sufficient detail and clarity to permit the court to assess whether its decision was patently unreasonable - See paragraphs 76 to 89.

Cases Noticed:

Total Support Services Ltd., Re, [2004] O.L.R.B. Rep. 147 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 1].

Brant Dairy Co. v. Ontario Milk Commission, [1973] S.C.R. 131, refd to. [para. 38].

Swan et al. v. Canada et al., [1990] 2 F.C. 409; 31 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Peralta et al. v. Ontario (1985), 7 O.A.C. 283; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 259 (C.A.), affd. [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1045; 89 N.R. 323; 31 O.A.C. 319, refd to. [para. 38].

Milk Marketing Board (B.C.) v. Aquilini et al. (1998), 112 B.C.A.C. 119; 182 W.A.C. 119; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 626 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Kane v. University of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 311, refd to. [para. 42].

Joplin v. Chief Constable of the City of Vancouver (1982), 144 D.L.R.(3d) 285 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1985), 20 D.L.R.(4th) 314 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 386; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 42].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 46].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 46].

Thyssen Elevator Ltd. v. National Elevator and Escalator Association et al., [2004] O.L.R.B. Rep. 847; 188 O.A.C. 349 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

Ajax (Town) v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 222 et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 188; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 516 (C.A.), affd. (2000), 253 N.R. 223; 133 O.A.C. 43; 185 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario Public Service Employees' Union (2001), 52 O.R.(3d) 77 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369; 193 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 47].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 47].

Gismondi v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al. (2003), 169 O.A.C. 62 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

London (City) v. Ayerswood Development Corp. et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 120 (C.A.), consd. [para. 51].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, consd. [para. 52].

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650; 323 N.R. 1; 241 D.L.R.(4th) 83; 2004 SCC 48, consd. [para. 52].

Khan v. University of Ottawa (1997), 101 O.A.C. 241; 34 O.R.(3d) 535 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Masciangelo v. Spensieri, [1990] O.J. No. 1429 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Cadillac Investments Ltd. v. Northwest Territories (Labour Standards Board), [1993] N.W.T.J. No. 126 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Willette v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner, [1985] 1 F.C. 423; 56 N.R. 161 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Eastern Provincial Airways Ltd. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1984] 1 F.C. 732; 50 N.R. 81; 2 D.L.R.(4th) 597 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Baltimore Aircoil Interamerican Corp. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, [1981] O.J. No. 175 (Div. Ct.), appeal dismissed [1981] O.J. No. 2026 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Sowemimo v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Man.) (1996), 111 Man.R.(2d) 276 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Cheung v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1981] 2 F.C. 764; 36 N.R. 563 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Labour Relations Board (Que.) v. Canadian Ingersoll-Rand Co., [1968] S.C.R. 695, refd to. [para. 57].

NAV Canada v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2228 (2001), 267 N.R. 125 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 57].

Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Quebec Labour Relations Board; Ex parte Komo Construction Inc., [1968] S.C.R. 172; 1 D.L.R.(3d) 125, refd to. [para. 61].

Webb v. Ontario Housing Corp. (1978), 22 O.R.(2d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Teamsters Local 938 v. Patrolman Security Services Inc., [2005] O.L.R.D. No. 4053, consd. [para. 64, footnote 3].

Ottawa-Carleton Public Employees Union, Local 503 v. Ottawa (City) et al., [2004] O.A.C. Uned 238; [2004] O.L.R.B. 468 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Barber, [1968] 2 O.R. 245 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Girvin et al. and Consumers' Gas Co., Re (1974), 1 O.R.(2d) 421 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

Bond v. New Brunswick (Board of Management) (1992), 122 N.B.R.(2d) 351; 306 A.P.R. 351 (T.D.), affd. (1992), 129 N.B.R.(2d) 149; 325 A.P.R. 149 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1993), 151 N.R. 398; 136 N.B.R.(2d) 400; 347 A.P.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 69].

Keeprite Workers Independent Union v. Keeprite Products Ltd. (1980), 29 O.R.(2d) 513 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Lee v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (2003), 175 O.A.C. 227; 66 O.R.(3d) 592 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 77].

Future Inns Canada Inc. v. Labour Relations Board (N.S.) et al. (1997), 160 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 473 A.P.R. 241 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 224 N.R. 154; 164 N.S.R.(2d) 240; 491 A.P.R. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 298; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 608, refd to. [para. 78].

McEachran v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [2005] O.A.C. Uned. 69; [2005] O.L.R.B. 182 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

Allan et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 201 O.A.C. 18; 76 O.R.(3d) 616 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

Doucette v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (2004), 327 N.R. 201; 245 D.L.R.(4th) 63 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 82].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein (2007), 222 O.A.C. 286; 2007 CanLII 8001 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 82].

Prassad v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 560; 93 N.R. 81; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 663, refd to. [para. 93].

Cedarvale Tree Services Ltd. v. Labourers' International Union of North America (1971), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 40 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

Québec-Téléphone v. Syndicat des agents de maîtrise de Québec-Téléphone (1997), 221 N.R. 312 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

Telus Communications Inc. v. Telecommunications Workers Union (2005), 338 N.R. 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

Raymond et al. v. Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des postes (2003), 318 N.R. 319 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382; 41 D.L.R.(3d) 6, refd to. [para. 101].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 109].

Chamberlain et al. v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710; 299 N.R. 1; 175 B.C.A.C. 161; 289 W.A.C. 161; 2002 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 109].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, S.O. 1995, c. 1, sect. 110(16), sect. 110(17), sect. 110(18), sect. 110(20) [para. 20]; sect. 147 [para. 22].

Labour Relations Act (Ont.), Rules of Procedure of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rule 41 [para. 23].

Rules of Procedure of the Ontario Labour Relations Board - see Labour Relations Act (Ont.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George, W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 1993), para. 15.30-15.40 [para. 18, footnote 2].

Brown, D.J.M., and Evans, J.M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (Looseleaf), para. 13:2221 [para. 38].

McArthur, Bloch and Salisbury, Canadian Construction Labour and Employment Law (Looseleaf), generally [para. 16, footnote 1].

Ontario, Labour Relations Board Information Bulletins, Information Bulletin No. 11, generally [para. 64, footnote 3].

Sack, Jeffrey, Mitchell, C. Michael, and Price, Sandy, Ontario Labour Relations Board Law and Practice (Looseleaf Ed.), generally [para. 16, footnote 1].

Willes, John A., The Craft Bargaining Unit (1970), generally [para. 18, footnote 2].

Winkler, W., A Study of Labour Relations Law in Construction Industry in Ontario (1964), generally [para. 18, footnote 2].

Counsel:

Lorne A. Richmond, for the applicant;

Douglas J. Wray, for the respondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers;

Scott G. Thompson, for the respondent, Guild Electric Limited;

Chris G. Paliare and Andrew K. Lokan, for the respondent, Ontario Labour Relations Board;

Malliha Wilson and Christopher P. Thompson, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario.

This application was heard on January 12 and 13, 2007, by Lane, Swinton and M.G.J. Quigley, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered by M.G.J. Quigley, J., and released on June 22, 2007.