Andrew W. Reynolds
Partner Toronto, T: 416.869.8542 F: 416.862.8247 areynolds@mathewsdinsdale.com
vCard
Karen Farinha, Law Clerk Assistant 416.862.8280 x253 kfarinha@mathewsdinsdale.com
Biography
Law Society of Ontario
Osgoode Hall Law School, LL.B.
Queen’s University, B.A. (Hons.)
Canadian Bar Association
Ontario Bar Association
Andrew is a Partner with Mathews Dinsdale, and currently practices in all areas of labour, employment and human rights law. He has represented employers in many different legal forums and, in particular, regularly appears on behalf of employers at the Ontario Labour Relations Board and at labour arbitration.
Andrew acts on behalf of a wide variety of employers, with a particular focus on the construction industry as well as long-term care and health care sector employers. In this context, Andrew has significant experience in representing employers during certification applications, grievance arbitrations, collective bargaining, interest arbitration, human rights matters, wrongful dismissal claims, employment standards appeals and other labour relations and employment law matters.
For more than a half a decade, Andrew held a number of different roles on the Ontario Bar Association Labour and Employment Section Executive. For the last two of his years on the Executive, Andrew was also a member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board Advisory Committee.
Andrew articled with Mathews Dinsdale before returning to the firm following his call to the Bar. Prior to joining the firm, Andrew completed his LL.B. at Osgoode Hall Law School, where he was a recipient of the Blakes Scholar Award for academic achievement.
- Share this bio
Representative experience
January 2021Employer successfully argued that it was not required to physically provide the Union with a witness’ cell phone for the purposes of a forensic audit. The Union subsequently withdrew its certification application — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
November 2020Employer successfully argued that it was permitted to reassign employees at its discretion without violating the seniority or any other provisions of the collective agreement. The Union’s grievance was dismissed — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
November 2020After making a number of successful preliminary objections to the scope of the grievance, the Employer successfully argued that it was permitted to choose to schedule part-time instead of full-time employees on statutory holidays without violating the scheduling or any other provisions of the collective agreement. The Union’s grievance was dismissed — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
October 2019Employer successfully argued that it was not required to pay premium pay in a variety of different circumstances. All six of the Union’s grievances were dismissed — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
August 2019Employer successfully argued that eligibility for participation in the company’s benefit plan was not dependent upon employees’ seniority dates, but rather was based upon shifts actually worked — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
July 2019Employer successfully argued that the Union had failed to particularize many of the positions it had taken in a Certification Application. The Union subsequently withdrew the Certification Application as well as an accompanying Unfair Labour Practice Application. Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
July 2019Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application by establishing that certain individuals who the union claimed were its employees were actually independent contractors –Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
July 2019Employer successfully argued that the Board should not order a second vote as a result of an altercation that took place on the day of the representation vote. The union lost the first vote and its Certification Application was dismissed — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
June 2019Employer successfully argued that a particular position did not fall within the Union’s bargaining unit. The Union’s grievance was dismissed — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
March 2019Employer successfully argued that it had not violated the vacation pay provisions of the collective agreement. The Union’s grievance was dismissed — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
January 2019Employer successfully argued that an interest arbitrator should determine that the terms of a collective agreement be consistent with what was agreed to between the employer and the union, but subsequently rejected by the employees in a ratification vote — Counsel: Rick Baldwin and Andrew Reynolds
November 2018Employer successfully argued that it was not a related or successor employer to a unionized company — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
November 2018Employer successfully argued that it should not be automatically certified as a result of alleged unfair labour practices — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
November 2018Employer, a construction manager, successfully defended against a Certification Application by establishing that certain individuals who the union claimed were its employees were actually employees of a different company — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
November 2018Employer, a large general contractor, successfully defended against a Certification Application by establishing that certain individuals who the union claimed were its employees were actually employees of a different company — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
October 2018Employer successfully argued that it should not be automatically certified as a result of alleged unfair labour practices — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
September 2018Employer successfully argued that the Labour Board should rescind orders made against the company by an MOL Employment Standards Officer — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
March 2018Employer successful argued that it had not violated a “mutual non-disparagement” clause contained in a Memorandum of Settlement. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
December 2017Employer successfully argued that a union’s “sale of business/related employer” application filed against it should be dismissed because the union had failed to particularize its allegations against the company. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
October 2017Employer successfully argued that a Human Rights Code application filed against it should be dismissed on the basis of delay. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
August 2017Employer successfully argued that a union’s “sale of business/related employer” application filed against it should be dismissed on the basis of delay. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
May 2017Employer successfully argued that part-time employees were not entitled to various benefits provided to full-time employees in the collective agreement. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
May 2017Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application in which the union claimed that certain individuals were not entitled to be included on the list of employees. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
February 2017Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application in which the union claimed that certain individuals were not entitled to be included on the list of employees. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
June 2016Employer successfully argued that statements taken from employees in the context of a Certification Application were subject to litigation privilege. The union subsequently withdrew the Certification Application. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
April 2016Employer successfully argued that certain layoffs were not implemented in bad faith or in violation of various provisions of the collective agreement. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
January 2016Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application by establishing that the union had not applied to represent an appropriate group of employees. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
August 2015Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application in which the union disputed the employer’s position as to which individuals should be included on the list of employees. Ruling in favour of the employer’s position as to the identities of the individuals properly included on the list of employees, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the Certification Application. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
April 2015Employer successfully argued that it should be permitted to raise an additional ground of defence to a Certification Application, in a case where the employer had retained counsel after the deadlines for filing a response had already expired. The union subsequently withdrew the Certification Application. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
February 2015Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application in which the union claimed that certain individuals were not entitled to be included on the list of employees. After the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a number of decisions in connection with the matter, the Certification Application was ultimately dismissed. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
February 2015Employer successfully defended against two Certification Applications by establishing that the union had misidentified the nature of a construction project affected by both applications. One Certification Application was dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and the other Certification Application was subsequently withdrawn by the Union. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
October 2014Employer successfully argued that it should be permitted to defend against a Certification Application despite retaining counsel after a certificate had already been issued to the union. The certificate was revoked and the union subsequently withdrew the Certification Application. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
July 2014Employer successfully argued that it was entitled to request that an employee attend an independent medical examination prior to returning to work from medical leave, due to the insufficiency of the medical information provided by the employee’s own doctor. The employer also successfully argued that it was entitled deal directly with the employee regarding return to work matters, as opposed to through the employee’s legal counsel. The employee’s unjust dismissal complaint was dismissed — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
April 2014Employer successfully argued that the union had failed to properly particularize the majority of its allegations in a grievance. The union also requested reconsideration of this decision, and the employer successfully argued that the request for reconsideration should be dismissed. The union subsequently abandoned the grievance. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
September 2013Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application in which the union claimed that certain individuals were not entitled to be included on the list of employees. After the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a number of decisions in connection with the matter, the union ultimately withdrew the Certification Application — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
September 2013Cleaning services provider successfully argued that a union’s unfair labour practice complaint, as well as the union’s related application that the cleaning services provider had effectively purchased the business of a unionized property manager, ought to be dismissed on a preliminary basis — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
August 2013Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application by establishing that an individual who was working for the employer on the day the union filed its Certification Application was an employee of the company rather than an independent contractor — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
March 2013Employer successfully argued that it should be permitted to defend against a Certification Application despite retaining counsel after the deadline for filing a response had already expired. The union also requested reconsideration of this decision, and the employer successfully argued that the request for reconsideration should be dismissed. The union subsequently withdrew the Certification Application. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
February 2013Employer successfully defended against an allegation that it had discriminated against a job applicant by not selecting him for the position of Fire Chief due to his age. The human rights complaint was dismissed — Counsel: Paula Rusak (Employer), Andrew Reynolds (Incumbent Fire Chief)
August 2012Employer successfully argued that an interest arbitrator should determine that the terms of a collective agreement be consistent with what was agreed to between the employer and the union, but subsequently rejected by the employees in a ratification vote — Counsel: Rick Baldwin and Andrew Reynolds
August 2012In a case where the employer retained counsel after the presumptive deadline for filing a response had already expired, the employer successfully established that the Certification Application had not been properly delivered to it. As such, the employer defeated the union’s claim that the employer’s response to the Certification Application was untimely. The union subsequently withdrew the Certification Application. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
August 2012Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application by establishing that an individual who was the son of the owner and a partial shareholder of the company was, in terms of the duties he actually performed, a non-managerial employee who was properly included on the list of employees — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
May 2012Employer successfully argued that an employee was a supervisor who was excluded from the union’s bargaining unit and was therefore not covered by the provisions of the union’s collective agreement. The union’s grievance was dismissed. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
March 2012Employer successfully argued that statements taken from employees in the context of a Certification Application were subject to litigation privilege. The union subsequently withdrew the Certification Application — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
March 2012Employer successfully defended against a Certification Application by establishing that certain individuals who the union claimed were its employees were actually employees of a different company — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
December 2011Canada Industrial Relations Board overturns federal certification application by the CAW to represent employees of ambulance service on First Nations’ Reserve in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions outlining federal–provincial divide for labour relations. – Counsel: Rick Baldwin, Andrew Reynolds
August 2011Employer successfully argued that it was not bound to a “cross-over clause” in the union’s collective agreement which purported to require the employer to perform high-rise residential construction work on a unionized basis. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
October 2010Company successfully defended against a recruiting agency’s claim that it had been responsible for the referrals of two employees who were later hired by the company. The company successfully established that the hiring of the employees was unrelated to any referrals made by the recruiting agency. — Counsel: Andrew Reynolds
Presentations
Events
Returning to the Workplace: Psychological and Legal Considerations
Read moreLabour Pains: A Cross-Canada Update on New and Developing Issues in Labour Law
Read moreMarijuana & Workplace Safety – What’s an Employer to Do? Medical and Legal Issues with Marijuana Legalization
Read moreArticles and papers
November 15, 2017Author, Mitigation of Damages Following Dismissal: New Instructions from the Court of Appeal. For the Ontario Bar Association Labour and Employment Law Newsletter.
November 22, 2015Author, “’Vaccinate or Mask’ Policies: A Reasonable Exercise of Management Rights?” For the Ontario Bar Association Labour and Employment Law Newsletter.
May 15, 2015Author, “Court Confirms that Individuals May Claim Damages for Alleged Breaches of their Personal Privacy.” For the Ontario Bar Association Labour and Employment Law Newsletter.
February 19, 2015Author, “Supreme Court Rules that Mounties have the Right to Engage in Collective Bargaining.” For the Ontario Bar Association Labour and Employment Law Newsletter.
November 14, 2014Author, “Three New Job-Protected Leaves Now in Force.” For the Ontario Bar Association Labour and Employment Law Newsletter.
September 24, 2014Author, “Ontario Human Rights Commission Issues New Policy on Mental Disabilities and Addictions.” For the Ontario Bar Association Labour and Employment Law Newsletter.
November 22, 2013November 22, 2013 Co-author, “Off Duty but Online: Employee Discipline in the Age of Social Media.” For the Centre for Law in the Contemporary Workplace, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University Conference on Privacy, Law, and the Contemporary Workplace: New Challenges and Directions.
March 28, 2011Co-author, “Choice of Forum for Human Rights Complaints in the Unionized Environment: The Human Rights Tribunal and Grievance Arbitration.” For the 2011 Police Association of Ontario Conference.
March 15, 2010Co-author, “Investigating Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Complaints – Best Practices and Big Mistakes.” For the 2010 Police Association of Ontario Conference.
May 2, 2009Co-author, “The Duty to Accommodate and Attendance Management Programs.” For the 2009 Ontario Association of Police Services Boards Annual Conference
May 2, 2019Co-author, “The Duty to Bargain in Good Faith” for the 2009 Ontario Association of Police Services Boards Annual Conference
Employer Update Webinars
Our complimentary webinars address the practical and legal issues for Canadian employers including issues arising from the current outbreak of COVID-19.
View our Webinars