IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT. Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD
|
|
- Brett Parker
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Public Service Grievance Board Suite Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) Fax (416) Commission des griefs de la fonction publique Bureau , rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) Téléc. : (416) P , P , P , P , P , P , P , P IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD BETWEEN Allan Charette, Tim Asselin, Brian Patterson, David Lalonde, Terry Kutchaw, Robert Nixon, Michael Verch, Dave MacGregor Grievors - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Deborah J. D. Leighton Vice-Chair FOR THE GRIEVORS FOR THE EMPLOYER Andrew Camman Polishuk, Camman and Steele Barristers and Solicitors Sean Kearney Senior Counsel Ministry of Government Services HEARING January 10, 2006.
2 2 Decision The issue before me is whether the employer has breached a memorandum of settlement signed on October 16, 2002 by the parties. The parties agreed in the memorandum to full and final settlement of remedial issues arising as a result of a decision of the board rendered on January 14, 2002, Williams et al and Ministry of Public Safety and Security, P/0008/01 et al. The parties agreed in paragraph seven that I would remain seized with respect to any dispute arising from the memorandum. Such a dispute arose in early 2005, and the grievors filed their grievances with the board on April 12, The parties also agreed that Mr. Dave MacGregor s grievance [P ], initially grouped with the grievors here, is different and should be heard separately. Given the need for disclosure, this grievance did not proceed. With regard to Mr. Michael Verch s grievance [P ], the employer raised a motion to dismiss his grievance at the outset of the hearing. This motion will be addressed at the end of the decision. The grievors, all Operational Managers (OM16 s) assigned to St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre, take the position that the employer has breached the memorandum by requiring them to participate in a recent selection process for thirteen OM16 positions at Brockville Jail/St. Lawrence Valley. The employer s position is that it has complied fully with the memorandum of settlement and the selection process used to eliminate the staffing overage was appropriate and fair to all affected managers. The facts before me are not in dispute and were agreed upon by the parties orally at the hearing into this matter. The memorandum agreed to by the parties followed a decision of the board in Williams that found that the grievors were entitled to rely on section 14(2) of Regulations 977,
3 3 under the Public Service Act (amended in 2002). This meant that competition # CS held in July 2001, insofar as it required the grievors to compete with non-om16 s, was contrary to the PSA. Following the decision in Williams, by way of the memorandum, the affected grievors were offered home positions at various institutions in the Province. The grievors Mr. Tim Asselin, Mr. Al Charette, Mr. Terry Kutchaw, Mr. David Lalonde, Mr. Robert Nixon and Mr. Brian Patterson - were all offered positions at St. Lawrence Valley. The memorandum of settlement also provides at paragraph two: Where this settlement creates staffing imbalances at particular institutions, such imbalances will not be resolved through a competition process between the grievors and current operational managers appointed pursuant to competition #CS held on or about July At the time of the settlement the employer planned to expand the capacity of St. Lawrence Valley. However, in January 2005, having completed part of the expansion, the government made a decision not to finish it. The ministry alleged that it also decided to amalgamate the administration of both St. Lawrence Valley and the Brockville Jail. The grievors counsel took issue with whether this amalgamation is legitimate, but this issue does not need to be decided in order to answer the question that I have before me. The decision not to further expand St. Lawrence Valley led the employer to conclude that it only required thirteen operational managers to run the facilities. Since there were twenty-six Operational Managers who held permanent positions at St. Lawrence Valley and Brockville Jail, the employer invited those with permanent positions to indicate whether they wanted to remain or keep a home position at the facilities. The grievors were also advised of the procedure that would be followed to reduce the numbers from twenty-six to thirteen OM16 s. A letter to one of the grievors provided in part:
4 4 The procedure indicates that where there is a reduction in the number of employees performing the same work, the determination of who receives a layoff (or surplus) notice and who is retained in the effected position(s) must be based on merit. All affected employees must be assessed using normal staffing practices, including interviews, to determine the best qualified for the position(s) to be staffed. Those employees not selected will receive a layoff (or surplus) notice. For the purposes of the operating procedure, merit refers to the selection of a candidate whose qualifications best meet employment-related selection criteria. Some of the grievors participated in the selection process, and others chose not to, taking the position that they ought not have to compete for their jobs. Mr. Asselin and Mr. Charette have opted to retire. Mr. Lalonde, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kutshaw have chosen to go to Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre. Mr. Patterson has selected a surplus package. THE GRIEVORS SUBMISSION Counsel for the grievors submitted that the memorandum of settlement signed in 2002 created a staffing imbalance at the two institutions, Brockville Jail and St. Lawrence Valley and he argued further that the employer can not resolve the overages through a competition, because of the language of paragraph two of the memorandum of settlement, which states that staff imbalances will not be resolved through a competition process between the grievors and current operational managers appointed pursuant to competition #CS Thus he argued the competition that was held in 2005 which assessed both the grievors and OM-16s appointed by the 2001 competition is contrary to the memorandum of settlement. Counsel argued further that the imbalance in staffing was not realized until the further decision was made not to continue to expand St. Lawrence Valley. It was counsel s view that paragraph two was not ambiguous and the employer s position on this matter, in a sense, read in a temporal or time restriction to the
5 5 language, which was incorrect. Thus the competition in 2005 was contrary to the memorandum of settlement and is, therefore, prohibited. THE EMPLOYER S SUBMISSION Counsel for the employer noted that the Williams decision was made during a major restructuring of the correctional services in Ontario. This was going on during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Small jails were being closed and super jails were being built. With these closures some people were job threatened and there were competitions to fill fewer positions. However this was not the situation in Counsel argued that the thirteen OM16 s who were not successful in this recent selection process in 2005 could all have jobs if they are willing to move. He argued that re-deployment is a viable option. Counsel argued further that the memorandum of settlement signed in 2002 was not intended to give the grievors priority for all future positions. He submitted that the grievors position that they should never have to compete against people who were successful in the 2001 competition was implausible. Counsel urged me to find that neither the people who were successful in the 2001 competition, nor the grievors who were assigned through the memorandum of settlement to home positions in the area, should be given a priority to get jobs in Since the employer had to decide how to reduce the numbers from twenty-six to thirteen Operational Managers, it used a selection process established under the Workforce Adjustment Policy. Counsel argued that the memorandum of settlement provided offers of home positions to the grievors. Paragraph two of the agreement then went on to provide that any imbalance at an institution would not be resolved through a competition process. However, counsel argued that the imbalance in staffing occurred as a result of a decision by the government not to finish
6 6 building St. Lawrence Valley. There is no evidence in counsel s submission that the memorandum of settlement led to any staffing imbalance in The decision not to finish St. Lawrence Valley was a political and financial one that affects everyone in the two institutions. In summary, counsel argued that the employer could not simply leave all twenty-six OM16 s in home positions for the two institutions. They had no choice but to assess the twenty-six and pick thirteen OM16 s for the remaining positions. The interests of all twenty-six had to be addressed fairly. Counsel relied on the following cases in support of his submission: Re Ottawa Hospital and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (2002) 105 L.A.C. (4 th ) 134 (Kaplan); Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Young) and the Ministry of the Attorney General (2003) GSB 2001/0660) (Abramsky). THE GRIEVORS REPLY ARGUMENT Counsel for the grievors argued in reply that the employer had not been fair to the grievors here. If a manager were not competent then it would be reasonable to fire that OM16. But if an OM16 was competent, and had worked for the Ministry for many, many years, as the grievors have in this case, then they deserved to be protected in counsel s submission. They ought not have to compete for their positions with much more junior staff. The staffing imbalance occurred after the competition in 2001, in counsel s submission. The imbalance was established when the employer chose to keep individuals who were successful in getting positions in the 2001 competition. In summary, counsel argued that the grievors should never have been made to compete against those who had been successful in the 2001 job competition, who were then acting OM16 s and members of the bargaining unit.
7 7 DECISION The question before me is whether the employer violated the 2002 memorandum of settlement by using a selection process in 2005 to downsize from twenty-six to thirteen Operational Managers at St. Lawrence Valley/Brockville. There is no doubt that as a general rule the employer can require employees in the same position- in effect to compete for their own position, when some jobs must be eliminated. It is also well-established law that the process must be fair to all affected employees. The only way that the grievors may avoid this wellestablished jurisprudence is if the memorandum of settlement signed as a result of Williams prohibits a competition to downsize in The grievors complaint in Williams was that they were forced to compete for OM16 positions with acting OM16 s, who were members of the bargaining unit. In Williams the grievors were able to persuade the board that they were entitled to the protection of section 14(2) of Regulation 977, which allowed them certain rights to transfer to open OM-16 positions. As a result of that decision the parties agreed on a memorandum of settlement that assigned the grievors before me in this matter to St. Lawrence Valley. The memorandum also provided at paragraph two as follows: Where this settlement creates staffing imbalances at particular institutions, such imbalances will not be resolved through a competition process between the grievors and current operational managers appointed pursuant to competition #CS held on or about July It is this language that must be interpreted. And the nub of the issue is when the staffing imbalance arises. The grievors position is that the imbalance or overage in staffing occurred when the memorandum was signed. The employer s position is that the overage in staffing
8 8 occurred when the government decided not to finish the expansion of St. Lawrence Valley and amalgamate it with Brockville Jail for the purposes of administration. Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, I am persuaded by the employer s argument. There was no staffing imbalance in 2002 when the grievors were assigned with others to St. Lawrence Valley. There was a plan to expand this facility and the employer also had a plan for the number of managers required to run the facility. But that plan changed in 2005: it is this change that led to the staffing overage and the necessity to downsize. With this change fewer managers were required. The grievors counsel emphasized that some of the grievors had not even got to their positions at St. Lawrence Valley. For example, some were working at Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre. However, I am not persuaded that this is material. The language of the agreement says clearly if the memorandum created a staffing overage, then the grievors could not be forced to compete against others who won an OM-16 position in the competition in But as noted earlier, it was the decision not to finish the expansion that lead to the overage. The situation here is really no different than if those assigned to an existing institution by way of the memorandum and those assigned by the competition in 2001, were facing the closing of half of their institution in Thus I am persuaded that the language in paragraph two was only intended to protect the grievors in 2002 if the assignment to an institution resulted in a staff overage. Counsel for the grievors argued eloquently that the grievors, who were all senior Operational Managers, deserve better than to have to compete for their own positions and that their seniority should protect them. While this board is sympathetic to the grievors, and recognizes the difficulty for those who must live through the downsizing and the change, there is no seniority
9 9 protection for Operational Managers. The only thing that this board can review is whether the process, like a job competition, has been fair to all a question that was not put before me. Thus I must conclude that the employer did not violate the memorandum of settlement when it used a selection process to choose thirteen Operational Managers to continue at St. Lawrence Valley/ Brockville Jail. Therefore the grievances before me are hereby dismissed. At the outset of the hearing counsel for the employer made a motion that Mr. Verch s grievance should be dismissed as moot. Mr. Verch was assigned to Brockville Jail after a competition in He was also successful in the selection process in getting one of the thirteen positions at St. Lawrence Valley/Brockville Jail in Having got one of the thirteen jobs, counsel for the employer argued that the grievor could have no remedy. Counsel for the grievor argued that it was not moot for various reasons, but primarily because Mr. Verch was concerned that while he is currently in a position at the Brockville Jail, he might find himself assigned to St. Lawrence Valley. Counsel for Mr. Verch argued that the amalgamation was not legitimate. If it was not, then Mr. Verch should not have been required to compete for a position under an amalgamated administrative model. He had a home position at Brockville Jail. Mr. Verch s grievance [P ] is not founded on an alleged breach of the memorandum of settlement dated It involves as far as I was advised an allegation that is factually an issue between the parties whether the amalgamation is legitimate. Therefore, I have decided that I do not have enough evidence to decide whether this grievance is moot. Should the grievor wish to proceed he or his counsel may contact the Registrar for a further hearing date. I shall also retain jurisdiction as requested by the parties to deal with Mr. MacGregor s grievance [P ] should the grievor wish to proceed.
10 10 Dated at Toronto this 27 th day of January, D.J.D. Leighton Vice-Chair
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT. Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD. Tom Sawyer et al.
Public Service Grievance Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission des griefs de la fonction publique Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT. Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD. A. Arkelian Grievor.
Public Service Grievance Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission des griefs de la fonction publique Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT. Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD. Lussier-Faouaz. - and -
Public Service Grievance Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission des griefs de la fonction publique Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under. THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD. Oral Binda. - and -
Public Service Grievance Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission des griefs de la fonction publique Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest
More informationTHE CHATHAM-KENT POLICE ASSOCIATION (Hereinafter referred to as the Association ) -and-
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION B E T W E E N: THE CHATHAM-KENT POLICE ASSOCIATION (Hereinafter referred to as the Association ) -and- THE CHATHAM-KENT POLICE SERVICES BOARD (Hereinafter referred to as
More informationCORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF GREY (GREY COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES)
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF GREY (GREY COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES) AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION POLICY GRIEVANCE JOB POSTING BEFORE: S.L. STEWART ARBITRATOR
More informationI am writing to update the Criminal Lawyers Association (CLA) and the criminal bar on LAO s decision regarding the charges within the block fee pilot.
40 Dundas Street West, Suite 200, Toronto ON M5G 2H1 40, rue Dundas Ouest, bureau 200, Toronto ON M5G 2H1 Toll free / Sans frais : 1-800-668-8258 Phone / Téléphone : 416-204-7110 Fax / Télécopieur : 416-204-7135
More information- 4 - APPLICABILITY OF ARBITRATIONS ACT, 1991
www.barryfisher.ca - 2 - INTRODUCTION Up until very recently it was assumed that the only way in which a non-unionized employee could have his or her employment dispute adjudicated upon was either before
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, and- IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. HÔTEL-DIEU GRACE HOSPITAL - the Employer.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: HÔTEL-DIEU GRACE HOSPITAL - the Employer -and- -and- NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION AND
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO)
BETWEEN: S.C.C. File No. 37863 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO) KEATLEY SURVEYING LTD. APPLICANT (Appellant) AND: TERANET INC. RESPONDENT (Respondent) AND:
More informationToronto Municipal Code Chapter 140, Lobbying
19 STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 140, Lobbying Date: December 3, 2015 To: From: The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place City Solicitor Wards: Reference Number: SUMMARY
More informationInterim Award #3 Re-accumulation of sick leave
IN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT -and- IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO POWER GENERATION INC. - The Employer -and- THE SOCIETY OF ENERGY PROFESSIONALS The Union In The
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Ontario Public Service Employees Union (The Employer ) -and- Ontario Public Service Staff Union (The Union ) BEFORE: Christine Schmidt, Sole Arbitrator For the
More informationLobbying Disclosure for Board Members Policy Proposed Revisions
STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 11. Lobbying Disclosure for Board Members Policy Proposed Revisions Date: May 26, 2014 To: From: Toronto Public Library Board City Librarian SUMMARY The purpose of this report
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY (the "Company") -and-
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY (the "Company") -and- SYSTEM COUNCIL NO. 11 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL (the "Union") RE: JOB POSTING UNDER ARTICLE
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c.6, Sched. B;
IN THE MATTER of the Society of Industrial and Cost Accountants of Ontario Act, 1941, Statutes of Ontario 1941, c.77; as amended by Statutes of Ontario 1967, c.129; Statutes of Ontario 1971, c.126; Statutes
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c.6, Sched. B;
IN THE MATTER of the Society of Industrial and Cost Accountants of Ontario Act, 1941, Statutes of Ontario 1941, c.77; as amended by Statutes of Ontario 1967, c.129; Statutes of Ontario 1971, c.126; Statutes
More informationFor the Union MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT PART 2: SPRUCEDALE YOUTH CENTRE. For the Ministry of Children. and Youth Services
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT PART 2: SPRUCEDALE YOUTH CENTRE On May 30,2008, an agreement was reached between the Employer (Ministry of Children and Youth Services; Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: INTERIM PLACE AND OPSEU GRIEVANCE OF L. REYES BEFORE: SUSAN L. STEWART ARBITRATOR APPEARANCES
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: INTERIM PLACE AND OPSEU GRIEVANCE OF L. REYES BEFORE: SUSAN L. STEWART ARBITRATOR APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION: FOR THE EMPLOYER: J. MICALLEF, COUNSEL S. KRUTH, COUNSEL
More informationONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD INFORMATION BULLETIN NO. 24. Applications for Review under the Employment Standards Act, 2000
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD INFORMATION BULLETIN NO. 24 Applications for Review under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 This Information Bulletin describes what happens when an employee, employer,
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under the Police Services Act. - and - AND in the matter of the individual grievance of Const. P.
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under the Police Services Act BETWEEN: BARRIE POLICE SERVICES BOARD (The Board ) - and - BARRIE POLICE ASSOCIATION (The Association ) AND in the matter of the individual
More informationTORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 140, LOBBYING. Chapter 140 LOBBYING. ARTICLE I General
Chapter 140 LOBBYING ARTICLE I General 140-1. Definitions. 140-2. Subsidiary corporation. 140-3. Restriction on application (persons and organizations). 140-4. Restriction on application (not-for-profit
More informationEarly Dispute Resolution in Family Law Disputes. June 2017
Early Dispute Resolution in Family Law Disputes June 2017 1. Introduction In 2014 the Ministry of Justice undertook the Justice Innovation Agenda to take a critical look at the justice system to find ways
More informationIn the matter of an Application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8., in relation to statutory accident benefits. G.K.
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis Automobile
More informationDate of Decision: 1 June 2012 DECISION
REVIEW AUTHORITY NEW ZEALAND [2012] NZRA 000009 Applicant AG Respondent Secretary for Justice Date of Decision: 1 June 2012 DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] In a decision dated 13 March 2012, the Secretary for
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c.6, Sched. B;
IN THE MATTER of the Society of Industrial and Cost Accountants of Ontario Act, 1941, Statutes of Ontario 1941, c.77; as amended by Statutes of Ontario 1967, c.129; Statutes of Ontario 1971, c.126; Statutes
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No.: CV-10-397096CP BETWEEN: TRILLIUM MOTOR WORLD LTD. Plaintiff GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA LIMITED and CASSELS BROCK & BLACKWELL LLP Defendants -and- AND BETWEEN:
More informationWere You Incarcerated in a Provincial Jail Between May 30, 2009 and November 27, 2017?
Were You Incarcerated in a Provincial Jail Between May 30, 2009 and November 27, 2017? If YES, A Class Action May Affect Your Rights. A Court authorized this notice. You are not being sued. You could be
More informationTHE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés de la Couronne Bureau
More informationREPORT IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 37 OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, and
REPORT IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 37 OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 and IN THE MATTER OF THE NEGOTIATION OF NEW COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS TO REPLACE THE ONES THAT
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c.6, Sched. B;
IN THE MATTER of the Society of Industrial and Cost Accountants of Ontario Act, 1941, Statutes of Ontario 1941, c.77; as amended by Statutes of Ontario 1967, c.129; Statutes of Ontario 1971, c.126; Statutes
More informationEFFECTIVE DATE: When Published [Information outdated - Feb. 2000]
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario SECTION: Procedures - Hearings INDEX NO.: P520-780 TITLE: APPROVED BY: PUBLISHED: Pre-Hearing Conference Procedures
More informationThe Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan. MARVIN TAYLOR, Applicant and REGINA POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent
The Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan MARVIN TAYLOR, Applicant and REGINA POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent LRB File No. 016-03; June 25, 2003 Chairperson, Gwen Gray, Q.C.; Members: Gloria Cymbalisty
More informationMemorandum of Understanding between SAMPLE. Toronto Police Service (hereinafter called the "Service") and. (hereinafter called the "Agency")
Memorandum of Understanding between Toronto Police Service (hereinafter called the "Service") and (hereinafter called the "Agency") A AUTHORITY FOR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION Disclosure of information under
More informationISSN # Price $5.00
Lobbyists Registration Office Ontario ANNUAL REPORT APRIL 1, 2002 MARCH 31, 2003 Copies of this and other Ontario Government publications are available at 880 Bay Street, Toronto, ON M7A 1N8 or Access
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ALGOMA STEEL INC. (hereinafter the Company ) AND UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2251 (hereinafter the
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, Statutes of Ontario 2010, C.6, Schedule B;
IN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, Statutes of Ontario 2010, C.6, Schedule B; AND IN THE MATTER of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990, c.s.22,
More informationAN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SNOW LAKE #2309 (hereinafter called the "District") - and -
IN THE MATTER OF: AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SNOW LAKE #2309 (hereinafter called the "District") - and - THE UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 8262 (hereinafter called the "Union")
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No. 842/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 2145850 ONTARIO LIMITED, o/a Highland Bus Services, BARR BUS LINES LIMITED, CLARK BUS & MARINA LIMITED, HEALEY TRANSPORTATION LIMITED,
More informationONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF A JOINT APPLICATION UNDER S.116 OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED, BY THE DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE ASSOCIATION AND THE DURHAM
More informationNOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPOSE SETTLEMENT OF CLASS PROCEEDING HEATHER ROBERTSON V. THOMSON AND OTHERS
NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPOSE SETTLEMENT OF CLASS PROCEEDING HEATHER ROBERTSON V. THOMSON AND OTHERS If you are a writer, artist or photographer, wherever you reside, please read this notice carefully as
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
B E T W E E N: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Court File No. (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) NISHNAWBE-ASKI NATION and GINOOGAMING FIRST NATION, LONG LAKE 58 FIRST NATION, and TRANSCANADA
More informationOrder F05-25 MINISTRY OF HEALTH. Errol Nadeau, Adjudicator. August 10, 2005
Order F05-25 MINISTRY OF HEALTH Errol Nadeau, Adjudicator August 10, 2005 Quicklaw Cite: [2005] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 33 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/orderf05-33.pdf Office URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca
More informationWho s who in a Criminal Trial
Mock Criminal Trial Scenario Who s who in a Criminal Trial ACCUSED The accused is the person who is alleged to have committed the criminal offence, and who has been charged with committing it. Before being
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, Statutes of Ontario 2010, C.6, Schedule B;
IN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, Statutes of Ontario 2010, C.6, Schedule B; AND IN THE MATTER of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990, c.s.22,
More informationFEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICES
Frankland #6 FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICES In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Union -and- Employer --------------------------------------------------------- Gr: Vacation Schedule/
More informationInstructions for preparing and submitting the Appellant Form (A1)
Environment and Land Tribunals Tribunaux de I'environnement et de Ontario I'amenagement du territoire Ontario Ontario Municipal Board 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (Toronto Region) -and- G.(J.) D.(A.) I.(E.) SURREPLY SUBMISSIONS OF AMICUS CURIAE JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (Toronto Region) BETWEEN: The Toronto Star Applicant v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -and- G.(J.) D.(A.) I.(E.) SURREPLY SUBMISSIONS OF AMICUS CURIAE JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH November
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 13, 2009 at Ottawa Oral DATE OF DECISION: June 16, 2009 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2009 ONWSIAT 1450
More informationALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT CANADA ) IN THE MATTER OF the Surveyors Act ) R.S.O. 1990, Chapter S.29 ) PROVINCE OF ) AND IN THE MATTER OF John G. Boyd, O.L.S. ) ) ONTARIO ) AND IN THE MATTER
More informationJOHN DOE #1, proposed representative Respondent on behalf of a class of Respondents RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT)
Court File No. T-662-16 FEDERAL COURT PROPOSED CLASS PROCEEDING B E T W E E N: VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, COBBLER NEVADA, LLC, PTG NEVADA, LLC, CLEAR SKIES NEVADA, LLC, GLACIER ENTERTAINMENT SARL OF LUXEMBOURG,
More informationPRE-APPROVAL NOTICE. Proposed settlement of class proceeding known as Berry v. Pulley (LAWSUIT BY AIR ONTARIO PILOTS OVER THE
PRE-APPROVAL NOTICE Proposed settlement of class proceeding known as Berry v. Pulley (LAWSUIT BY AIR ONTARIO PILOTS OVER THE NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PICHER SENIORITY AWARD) PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND - GOLDBRIDGE FINANCIAL INC., WESLEY WAYNE WEBER and SHAWN C.
Ontario Commission des P.O. Box 55, 19 th Floor CP 55, 19e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN
More informationNOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL. Part 6, Criminal Procedure Act In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL Part 6, Criminal Procedure Act 2011 In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand [Name] v [R or Police prosecutor] Name of applicant:.. Decision being appealed:. Date
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. NOTICE OF MOTION (Motion for Leave to Intervene)
Court File No. A-145-12 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant - and - AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, CHIEFS OF ONTARIO, FIRST NATIONS CHILD & FAMILY CARING SOCIETY, ASSEMBLY OF
More informationFEDERAL COURT. - and -
Court File No. T-616-12 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: LEEANNE BIELLI Applicant - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, MARC MARYLAND (Chief Electoral Officer), URMA ELLIS (RETURNING OFFICER FOR DON VALLEY EAST),
More informationRefugee Claims: Gathering Evidence, Maureen Silcoff Barrister & Solicitor
Refugee Claims: Gathering Evidence, Maureen Silcoff Barrister & Solicitor Preparation & Time Shortened timelines for Hearing Dates: They differ for different types of claims Non-DCO claimants: 60 days
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. - and - Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
Court File No. 60680 CP ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N : 1688782 ONTARIO INC. Plaintiff - and - MAPLE LEAF FOODS INC. and MAPLE LEAF CONSUMER FOODS INC. Defendants Proceeding under the
More informationCANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO Heard in Montreal, January 11, Concerning
CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO. 4528 Heard in Montreal, January 11, 2017 Concerning CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY And TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE MAINTENANCE
More informationONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION PRACTICE GUIDELINE
ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION PRACTICE GUIDELINE 1. APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION... 1 (1) APPLICATION... 1 2. FILING DOCUMENTS... 1 (1) REDACTIONS... 1 (2) MERITS HEARING FOR AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING...
More informationLABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL (As proposed by the Portfolio Committee on Labour (National Assembly)) (The English text is the offıcial text of the Bill) (MINISTER OF LABOUR)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) File Number: 34336 BETWEEN NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION SAULT STE. MARIE POLICE SERVICES BOARD. - and - SAULT STE. MARIE POLICE ASSOCIATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION B E T W E E N: SAULT STE. MARIE POLICE SERVICES BOARD (The Board ) - and - SAULT STE. MARIE POLICE ASSOCIATION (The Association) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF CONSTABLE
More informationB e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE LEWISON LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
A2/2014/1626 Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 984 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (HIS HONOUR JUDGE ARMITAGE QC) Royal
More informationMUNICIPAL ACT APPLICATION BY TREASURER
Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Assessment Review Board, 655 Bay Street, Suite 1200, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K4 Phone: (416) 212-6349 or 1-866-448-2248 Fax: (416) 645-1819 or 1-866-297-1822 Website:
More informationBEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between MILWAUKEE COUNTY. and MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFF S ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between MILWAUKEE COUNTY and MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFF S ASSOCIATION Case 668 No. 68208 (Shift Selection Grievance) Appearances: Timothy
More informationEnvironmental Review Tribunal Oak Ridges Moraine Hearings
Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal Oak Ridges Moraine Hearings A Guide to Hearings under sections 10, 12 or 18 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 www.elto.gov.on.ca
More informationcv 1S~'S~V I&~ Court File No.
cv 1S~'S~V I&~ Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: (Court seal) METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 933 Plaintiff - and- ICC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD., and MASSIMO MUSSO
More informationand Parents Linda Popielarczyk, MSW, RSW, Acc.FM (OAFM) Parenting Coordinator , LLB, Acc.FM, CPMed (OAFM) Arbitrator
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT FOR PARENTING COORDINATION SERVICES AND ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARBITRATION ACT S.O. 1991, c.17 and the FAMILY LAW ACT R.S.O. 1990, c.f.3. BETWEEN: and Parents AND: AND:
More informationCITY OF TORONTO ACT COMPLAINT VACANT UNIT REBATE
Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Phone: (416) 212-6349 or 1-866-448-2248 Fax: (416) 314-3717 or 1-877-849-2066 Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca CITY OF TORONTO ACT COMPLAINT VACANT UNIT REBATE Form and
More informationLitigation Process. in the Province. Ontario
Litigation Process in the Province of Ontario Demand Letter This document is only intended to provide a generic outline of the litigation process for educational purposes. The specific details of each
More informationINFORMATION BULLETIN
INFORMATION BULLETIN #18 THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION I. INTRODUCTION When a union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit of employees, it normally negotiates a collective agreement with
More informationSchedule A Review Board Rules of Procedure
Schedule A Review Board Rules of Procedure General Principle 1. These Rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every matter before the
More informationBarristers and Solicitors. Leo F. Longo Direct: February 1, 2017 Our File No
Aird & Berlis LLP Barristers and Solicitors Leo F. Longo Direct: 416.865.7778 E-mail: llongo@airdberlis.com February 1, 2017 Our File No. 135231 To whom it may concern Dear Sir/Madame: Re: The Town of
More informationIn the matter of an Application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8, in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal Automobile Accident Benefits Service Mailing Address: 77 Wellesley St. W., Box 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3 In-Person Service:
More informationA Guide to the Greater Toronto Hockey League Appeal Process
A Guide to the Greater Toronto Hockey League Appeal Process For Players, Parents, Volunteers, Administrators & Clubs As Of February 1, 2013 Table of Contents A Guide to the GTHL Appeal Process.... 3 Structure...3
More informationRunning head: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OLRB AND LABOUR ARBITRATION DECISIONS 1. Judicial Review of Labour Relations Board and Labour Arbitration Decisions
Running head: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OLRB AND LABOUR ARBITRATION DECISIONS 1 Judicial Review of Labour Relations Board and Labour Arbitration Decisions in the Post-Dunsmuir Period in Ontario Luba Yurchak JUDICIAL
More informationNOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE LAWN MOWERS CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE LAWN MOWERS CLASS ACTION Read this Notice Carefully as it May Affect Your Rights TO: All persons in Canada who between January
More informationONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD. Labour Relations Act, 1995
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD Labour Relations Act, 1995 OLRB Case No: 1201-17-U Unlawful Strike Heligear Canada Acquisition Corp d/b/a Northstar Aerospace Milton, Applicant v Unifor Local 112, Jerry
More informationGOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE. Reviewed and Approved by the Governance and Human Resources Committee: May 20, 2014
Reviewed and Approved by the Governance and Human Resources Committee: May 20, 2014 Reviewed and Approved by the Board of Directors: May 21, 2014 1. OBJECTIVES The Governance and Human Resources Committee
More informationFORMAL MEMORANDUM STAGE 2 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
FORMAL MEMORANDUM STAGE 2 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Introduction... 1 Stage 2 Review Cases... 2 Single Commissioner Decisions... 2 Decision-Making Committees... 3 Other decision-making committees... 4 The
More informationONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE December 2005 Revised July 2006; January 1, 2008; March 1, 2009; March 2010; April 2012; January 2013; July 2014; March 2016; November 2017 January 2018
More informationFAMILY PRACTICE DIRECTIVE #5
FAMILY PRACTICE DIRECTIVE #5 SUMMARY HEARINGS IN FAMILY SERVICES PROCEEDINGS REFERENCE: FAM-PD #5 Effective: September 1, 2018 1. The following practices and procedures shall be used in contested applications
More informationCANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO Heard in Montreal, Wednesday, 13 July Concerning
CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO. 4028 Heard in Montreal, Wednesday, 13 July 2011 Concerning VIA RAIL CANADA INC. And TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE DISPUTE: The dismissal
More informationLabour Relations Board Saskatchewan. ERIC MORIN, Applicant v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1-184, Respondent
Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan ERIC MORIN, Applicant v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1-184, Respondent LRB File No. 115-07; January 17, 2008 Chairperson, James Seibel; Members: Maurice Werezak
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 23, 2015 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: May 13, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT 1038
More informationAlgonquin Nation Secretariat
Algonquin Nation Secretariat 6A Kateri Street, Timiskaming Reserve Notre Dame du Nord Quebec J0Z 3B0 Tel: 819.723.2019 Fax: 819.723.2345 E-mail: Info@algonquinnation.ca Presentation to Mr. Benoît Pelletier,
More informationSamuel G. Momanyi v Attorney General & another [2012] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Petition 341 of 2011 SAMUEL G. MOMANYI..PETITIONER VERSUS THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL..... 1ST RESPONDENT SDV TRANSAMI KENYA LTD....2ND
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Court of Appeal File No. Divisional Court File No. 130/13 (Court File No. 08-CV-347100CP) B E T W E E N: LISA CAVANAUGH, ANDREW HALE-BYRNE, RICHARD VAN DUSEN, MARGARET GRANGER
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ELIZABETH MATLAKALA BODIBE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 490/15 In the matter between: ELIZABETH MATLAKALA BODIBE Applicant and PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATING BARGAINING COUNCIL DANIEL
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE EXCALIBUR SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES LP. - and - SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY FELDMAN LLP
Court File No. CV-12-466694-00CP ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: EXCALIBUR SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES LP Plaintiff - and - SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY FELDMAN LLP Defendant Proceeding Under the Class
More informationBefore: JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER (In Private) - and - ANONYMISATION APPLIES
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual
More informationLocal Planning Appeal Tribunal Sample Procedural Order
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Sample Procedural Order ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S). PL####### PROCEEDING COMMENDED UNDER (Specify: statute and provision under which proceeding was commenced) Applicant(s)/Appellant(s):
More informationAGREEMENT. GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Represented by the BC Public Service Agency (the Employer )
AGREEMENT BETWEEN: GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Represented by the BC Public Service Agency (the Employer ) AND: BRITISH COLUMBIA CROWN COUNSEL ASSOCIATION (the Association ) WITH RESPECT
More informationCOURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-344028 DATE: 20091218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK INC. (Defendant) Justice Stinson COUNSEL: Kevin D. Sherkin,
More informationGOODHUE, D. (OPSEU) v. CENTENNIAL COLLEGE (Samuels) December 8, 1988
HEADNOTE Board of Arbitration OPSEU #88A629 Dismissal GOODHUE, D. (OPSEU) v. CENTENNIAL COLLEGE (Samuels) December 8, 1988 The grievor was a probationary employee who grieved he had been terminated in
More informationONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD. Labour Relations Act, 1995
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD Labour Relations Act, 1995 OLRB Case No: 1956-17-VO Last Offer Vote College Employer Council, Applicant v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party COVER LETTER
More informationBAR COUNCIL SEMINAR ON COSTS AND FEE ESTIMATES. Paper by Denis McDonald SC Monday 11 th May 2009
BAR COUNCIL SEMINAR ON COSTS AND FEE ESTIMATES Paper by Denis McDonald SC Monday 11 th May 2009 THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF ASSESSING COSTS Introduction 1. The purpose of this paper is to provide an outline
More information--- ------ DURHAM REGION PLANNING RECEIVED JUL 1 O 2017 BUILDING YOUR IDEAS. INTO BIG PLANS THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD. FILE# Flf'\H/Fi"",-..., TRANSMITIAL Sent By: OMail OCourier Hand Delivered [J'icked up
More informationInformation Brief. British Columbia Law Institute Workplace Dispute Resolution Consultation. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Suite 1170, 605 Robson St. Vancouver BC V6B 5J3 Phone: (604) 775-2000 Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844 TTY: (604) 775-2021 FAX: (604) 775-2020 Internet: www.bchrt.bc.ca
More information