Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 et al., (2016) 351 O.A.C. 98 (CA)

• Judge: Feldman, Gillese and D. Brown, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 24, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2016), 351 O.A.C. 98 (CA);2016 ONCA 460

Ont. Refrigeration v. PPF (2016), 351 O.A.C. 98 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.017

The Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association (applicant/respondent) v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada Local 787 and Norm Jesin (respondents/ appellant )

(C61021; 2016 ONCA 460)

Indexed As: Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Feldman, Gillese and D. Brown, JJ.A.

June 10, 2016.

Summary:

Amendments to the Labour Relations Act, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, contained in ss. 150.1 to 150.4 of the Act, limited the ability of those operating in the residential sector of the construction industry in the greater Toronto area (GTA) to conduct strikes or lockouts. They also offered the parties to a collective bargaining dispute, in that sector and geographical area, the right to have their dispute determined by an interest arbitrator appointed by the Minister of Labour. The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 (the "Union") and the Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association ("ORAC") engaged in collective bargaining but failed to reach a new agreement. The Union gave notice, pursuant to s. 150.4 of the Act, that it required the matters in dispute to be decided by arbitration. The Minister appointed an arbitrator pursuant to s. 150.4(7) of the Act. ORAC took the position that the arbitrator's jurisdiction was restricted to the geographic areas in and around Toronto referred to in s. 150.1(1) (the GTA). The Union's position was that the arbitrator had the power to make a province-wide award. In his award, the arbitrator determined that he had the power to make a renewal agreement that would apply province-wide. On the merits, he concluded that the renewal agreement would consist of the prior collective agreement, as amended by the terms that the parties had agreed on, and the Union's proposed wage increases. ORAC applied for judicial review challenging the arbitrator's determination of the scope of his jurisdiction.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported at, 333 O.A.C. 177, concluded that the arbitrator's jurisdiction was limited to the GTA. The court quashed the Award in respect of the non-GTA. The Union appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allow the appeal and restored the Award. The Divisional Court did not conduct a standard of review analysis. It concluded that the arbitrator's decision on jurisdiction could not stand because it was neither correct nor reasonable. The Divisional Court erred in its approach. It ought to have begun its analysis by deciding what standard of review applied to the arbitrator's determination. The court determined that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review. The Divisional Court erred in setting aside the arbitrator's determination of the scope of his jurisdiction. The arbitrator's determination was reasonable.

Arbitration - Topic 8705

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - Practice - Appeals - Standard of review - See paragraphs 44 to 62.

Labour Law - Topic 6374

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Arbitration of terms or interest arbitration - Jurisdiction of arbitrator - See paragraphs 63 to 75.

Counsel:

Ronald Lebi, for the appellant;

Richard J. Charney and Pamela Hofman, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 24, 2016, before Feldman, Gillese and D. Brown, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Gillese, J.A., and was released on June 10, 2016.