Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)

home / about / Democracy, Law and Duty / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers

Simon's Favourite Charity -
Little Friends Lefkada (Greece)
Cat and Dog Rescue


Statutory Interpretation - Labour

. Mulmer Services Ltd. v. LIUNA, Local 183

In Mulmer Services Ltd. v. LIUNA, Local 183 (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered labour law interpretation:
[48] In coming to that conclusion, the Board considered that the “starting point”[47] for its consideration of the proper interpretation of the term “premises” was the OLRB’s previous decision in Medieval Times. Early in its analysis, the Board closely examined the Medieval Times decision, noting its broad and inclusive approach to the interpretation of the Act, as follows:
In Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament, the Board made the following observations regarding the wording of section 64.2 (which was introduced into the LRA in June 1992, but repealed in November 1995). The Board (here) notes that the wording of section 69.1 is identical to the wording of section 64.2.
55. [...] It is noteworthy to observe the broad language utilized by the Legislature throughout section 64.2(1) of the Act. The inclusive language adopted by the Legislature when referring to the enumerated services specifically identified by that subsection makes it clear that the enumerated services are not exhaustive of the entire range of services which may be captured by the section. The use of the broad phrase “related to servicing the premises” reflects the intention of the Legislature to encompass various other types of services which may be provided by or to building owners or managers. It is also noteworthy that the phrase “provided, directly or indirectly, by or to a building owner or manager” is also wide-sweeping in scope. It is manifest from the language of section 64.2 that the Legislature intended this provision of the Act to have broad applicability, and to encompass a wide range of commercial circumstances.[48] [Emphasis added.]
[49] The Board’s earlier decision in Medieval Times clearly informed the Board’s analysis and conclusion that the shuttle bus service provided by Mulmer is related to servicing UHN premises:
The shuttle service exists because UHN determined that it needed to provide such a service to its patients and staff. … Both [Toronto General and Toronto Western] hospitals are UHN facilities. In view of the interpretation of “premises” adopted in Medieval Times Dinner and Tournament, the hospitals can certainly be regarded as “the premises” of UHN for the purposes of section 69.1. Furthermore, the shuttle bus service was clearly conceived to “service” those premises. That is its primary function. The fact that the shuttle buses travel between premises on public roads, and load and unload passengers (at one end of the route) on a public street bordering the premises does not preclude a finding that the shuttle buses “service” UHN premises.[49]
[50] In embracing a broad and purposive interpretation of s. 69.1(1), consistent with its earlier jurisprudence,[50] the Board also rejected Mulmer’s submission that placed significant emphasis on the heading (“Successor rights, building services”) preceding the subsection. Quite fairly, the Board relied on s. 70 of the Legislation Act, 2006, noting that headings and marginal notes are inserted in legislation “for convenience of reference only and do not form part of it.”[51]


The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.

Last modified: 17-08-23
By: admin