Dale Hewat

The parties attended a mediation regarding a grievance which did not result in a settlement.

The arbitrator issued a procedural order setting a timetable for the exchange of particulars and the production of documents.

The hearing was adjourned to a later date.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of three fixed-term Operations Officers at the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre, alleging the Employer failed to post and fill permanent vacancies, failed to convert them to regular service, and failed to provide attendance credits.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post permanent vacancies despite a continuing need for full-time work at the duty desk.

The Arbitrator also found the Employer improperly ceased issuing attendance credits.

However, the conversion grievance was dismissed because the collective agreement required a minimum number of 'straight-time' hours, and the grievors' overtime hours could not be included to meet the threshold.

The union grieved that the grievor's manager engaged in bullying and harassment, creating a poisoned work environment for the grievor who had a health-related workplace accommodation.

During the hearing, the employer brought a non-suit motion, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator applied the established principles for non-suit motions and considered the grievor's unique accommodated work situation.

Finding that there was some credible evidence to support a prima facie case, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's non-suit motion and directed the hearing to continue.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was harassed by her manager.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, a case-management conference was scheduled.

The grievor failed to attend the conference, and union counsel advised she had been unable to contact the grievor for several weeks.

The arbitrator adjourned the matter and directed the grievor to provide reasons for her non-attendance, failing which the grievance could be dismissed.

The union grieved 3, 5, and 7-day suspensions imposed on employees for failing to follow managerial meal service directives.

During a conference call to discuss the process for a video-conference hearing, the arbitrator issued case management directions.

The arbitrator ordered that evidence in chief take the form of written declarations, set a schedule for filing the declarations, and established rules for oral evidence and cross-examination at the hearing.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to investigate and take corrective action regarding two incidents of workplace harassment by a co-worker, seeking damages for the grievor's pain and suffering.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to award such damages because they are compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The Arbitrator allowed the Employer's motion, finding that damages for mental distress and pain and suffering arising from workplace harassment are compensable under the WSIA, and therefore s. 26(2) of the WSIA bars the Board from awarding them.

The grievance came before the Arbitrator for mediation but was not settled.

The parties agreed to schedule an additional mediation/arbitration date on the merits for October 1, 2020.

The Arbitrator set deadlines for the Union to provide a summary of particulars and requests for production, and for the Employer to respond.

The Union sought to consolidate a grievance alleging harassment and a poisoned work environment with another grievance regarding compensation for time spent in a police investigation.

The Arbitrator declined to consolidate the matters, finding they involved different facts, locations, and managers.

The Employer objected to the Union's attempt to expand the scope of the grievance to include the grievor's subsequent transfer to another store, which the Union alleged was a reprisal.

The Arbitrator scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the transfer should be included in the scope of the grievance and made orders for production and particulars.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to provide attendance credits and failed to convert fixed-term positions to regular full-time positions.

At a hearing for preliminary matters, the parties reached an agreement on procedural steps.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce requested documentation, the Union to provide will-say statements, and established the relevant time frame for the grievances as going back to May 14, 2016.

The matter was scheduled to continue on subsequent dates.

The union sought an order for the production of sign-in sheets for the grievors for a one-year period to support a claim for retroactive compensation for unpaid breaks.

The employer refused, arguing the request was a fishing expedition and lacked sufficient particulars.

Applying the established test for disclosure, the arbitrator found the sign-in sheets were arguably relevant, the request was sufficiently particularized, it did not amount to a fishing expedition, and production would not cause undue prejudice.

The employer was ordered to produce the sign-in sheets.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to screen the grievor's applications for job competitions in a fair and equitable manner.

The arbitrator issued case management directions under s. 22.16 of the Collective Agreement, setting out a schedule for the production of documents, the filing of declarations in lieu of examination-in-chief, and the procedure for cross-examination and resolving preliminary issues prior to the hearing.

The parties contacted the Grievance Settlement Board seeking an order for particulars in advance of the next scheduled hearing date.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the materials identified as the 'Appendixes to the Report' to the Union, with the condition that the disclosure only be used for purposes related to the proceeding.

The parties contacted the Grievance Settlement Board seeking an order for particulars ahead of an arbitration hearing scheduled to begin on April 23, 2019.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the 'Investigative Material' to the Union to allow preparation for the hearing, with the condition that the disclosure only be used for purposes related to the proceeding.

In a grievance concerning a job competition, the Union sought production of the personnel files of the challenged incumbents.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the files without redaction of personal information, subject to the condition that the documents remain in the possession of Union counsel.

The parties referred a grievance to mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator, issuing a decision without precedent or prejudice and without written reasons, awarded the grievor $5,000.00 in general damages.

The parties reached a settlement regarding a 2017 grievance concerning registered nurses working during unpaid breaks, except for the issue of retroactive compensation.

The Union also sought to consolidate a 2014 grievance on the same issue.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the 2017 grievance, including a list of shifts worked during unpaid breaks without compensation, and scheduled a hearing to determine the scope of retroactive compensation and whether the grievances should be consolidated.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against York University.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, claiming the adjudicator improperly removed personal respondents, denied adjournment requests, and refused to allow certain witnesses to testify.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's claims and found that they had either been fully addressed in previous interim decisions or did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a former student in a university education program, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status, and other grounds, claiming a conspiracy by faculty members to fail him in his practicum after he refused sexual advances.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and was inconsistent with the documentary evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a student diagnosed with ADHD and ODD, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against him on the basis of race and disability, and engaged in reprisals, through a series of suspensions and disciplinary actions across four different schools.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the applications, finding no evidence of racial discrimination or reprisal.

The Tribunal held that the school board had appropriately considered the applicant's disabilities as mitigating factors when imposing discipline and had implemented numerous accommodations and strategies to assist him academically and behaviourally, thereby fulfilling its duty to accommodate.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, or place of origin in her employment termination.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator misunderstood evidence, preferred the respondents' evidence, and incorrectly named the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and had not presented any new facts or evidence that would satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.