Sarah Atkinson

The parties agreed on consent to an order regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical and WSIB files.

The arbitrator issued the order, which requires the union and grievor to produce all arguably relevant medical and WSIB records to employer counsel.

The order imposes strict confidentiality conditions, limiting the use of the documents to the arbitration and restricting who may access them.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard submissions from the parties regarding a grievance.

The Arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor $275.00 as damages without deduction, remaining seized with respect to implementation.

The Union sought an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing after the grievor failed to attend without explanation.

The Employer objected and brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on the merits.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, directing the parties to schedule a new hearing date and warning the grievor that the hearing would proceed and the motion to dismiss would be addressed if she failed to attend again.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn the remaining scheduled dates for an ongoing grievance arbitration hearing because its next witness, the grievor's former manager, was on parental leave.

The Association opposed the request.

The Arbitrator applied the established factors for granting an adjournment and found that while the Employer had a valid reason, the indefinite length of the requested adjournment and the prejudice to the grievor, who would have to continue working without the requested alternative work arrangement, outweighed the reasons for the delay.

The motion for an adjournment was denied.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to award a job to a candidate other than the grievor.

In a procedural decision, the Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce arguably relevant documents, subject to redactions for personal information and the implied undertaking rule.

The Arbitrator also directed the Union to provide particulars of the grievance by a specified date.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and opposing counsel discriminated against him during a prior teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it has no jurisdiction over the conduct of opposing counsel as they do not provide a service to the applicant, and that the allegations against the Tribunal are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.