Donald D. Carter

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was dismissed for cause following three incidents, including failing to report a subordinate's excessive use of force and personally using excessive force by kicking a meal hatch on an inmate's arm.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant's serious lapses in judgment justified discipline and irreparably damaged the employment relationship, dismissal without any compensation was too severe given his long, exemplary service and the difficult job market.

Because the complainant had applied force to a vulnerable person, the Board was statutorily barred from reinstating him to his former position.

The Board awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to 24 months' wages and benefits.

The complainant was discharged by the employer and subsequently filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant failed to file the Form 1 Application within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the time limits in the regulation are mandatory and that it has no statutory authority to extend them.

Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant received a ten-day suspension and filed a notice of proposal to file a complaint well outside the 14-day time limit prescribed by section 8 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the time limits in the Regulation are mandatory and that notice within the time limit is an essential precondition for the Board to assume jurisdiction.

As there is no statutory authority to relieve against these mandatory time limits, the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant sought interim relief to postpone an anticipated job competition process, arguing he had an arguable case on the merits and the harm of possible dismissal outweighed any harm to the employer.

The employer opposed, arguing the complainant lacked an arguable case and the balance of harm favoured the employer's planned workforce reorganization.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the application, finding the complainant failed to establish that the Board's broad remedial powers would be insufficient to fashion an appropriate remedy following a full hearing on the merits.

The complainant sought interim relief to prevent the employer from offering his current job as a Field Intelligence Officer for province-wide competition, arguing it breached his employment contract.

The employer opposed, citing its planned reorganization and the Board's ability to fashion a remedy later.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that its broad remedial powers, including reinstatement and compensatory damages, would be sufficient to provide an adequate remedy if the complainant ultimately succeeded on the merits.

The complainant requested certain particulars and the production of documents in an arbitration under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the request, subject to conditions that the disclosed material be used solely for the litigation, not be disseminated further without an order, and be returned at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction over the complaints because the complainant failed to give proper notice to his Deputy Minister as required by section 8 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The complainant conceded that he had not given the required notice but argued the objection should be dismissed due to the employer's failure to comply with a procedural undertaking.

The Board held that notice to the Deputy Minister is an essential precondition for jurisdiction.

As the required notice was not given, the complainant was not eligible to file the complaints, and they were dismissed.

The grievors alleged that the employer failed to follow its own operating procedures regarding compensation resulting from performance evaluations for the 2006-07 fiscal year, which adversely affected their pension calculations.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that section 4(2) of Regulation 378/07 expressly precludes it from dealing with complaints about compensation provided or denied as a result of a performance evaluation.

Despite acknowledging the merits of the grievances, the Board dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a correctional officer, received an anonymous racist and threatening letter at her home, one of several sent to minority employees at the Toronto Jail.

She suffered mental stress, went on leave, and received WSIB benefits.

The parties agreed on the facts and asked the Public Service Grievance Board to determine the appropriate remedy.

The employer argued that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act precluded further remedy for loss of income.

The Board held that the human rights guarantee against racial harassment was an implicit term of the employment contract.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to compensate for financial losses and mental distress flowing from the breach of this contractual guarantee, distinct from the WSIB's jurisdiction over health injuries.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the difference between her WSIB benefits and her regular income, plus $20,000 for mental distress, but declined to award costs.

The grievors requested that the Public Service Grievance Board reconsider its earlier decision dismissing their complaints regarding pay for performance.

The employer objected, arguing the Board was functus officio and lacked statutory authority to reconsider its decisions.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that as a statutory tribunal, it does not possess inherent powers to reconsider a final decision in the absence of an express legislative mandate.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The grievor challenged an unsuccessful job competition and requested disclosure of all candidates' test results and answers.

The Board ordered the grievor to provide written particulars of his grievance before ruling on the disclosure request.

After the grievor failed to provide particulars despite multiple extensions and notices, the employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The Board granted the motion, holding that while unrepresented grievors should not face overly onerous procedural burdens, they must still provide basic particulars to establish the relevancy of requested documents.