Anson Cai

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the employer to produce documents to the union.

The ordered production included correspondence, notes, and investigation reports regarding a complaint against the grievor, as well as documents and the investigation report concerning the grievor's WDHP complaint against the complainant.

The order was made without prejudice to future production requests.

The Grievor, a correctional officer, alleged that a co-worker made an offensive comment suggesting she was bringing contraband into the facility.

She filed an internal complaint and a WDHP complaint, both of which were investigated but not substantiated as harassment.

The Union grieved the Employer's response.

At the close of the Union's case, the Employer brought a non-suit motion.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding no prima facie case that the Employer failed to respond appropriately or that the single comment constituted racial harassment, especially since the Grievor did not raise race as a factor until after the WDHP process concluded.

In a grievance concerning the non-renewal of a fixed term Corrections Officer's contract due to availability issues, the Union sought production of schedules and warning letters for 10 other fixed term employees.

The Union argued this would show whether the grievor was treated differently.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding the documents were not arguably relevant because the Union's particulars alleged discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate, not differential treatment compared to other employees.

The request improperly sought to discover a case not asserted.

At a case management hearing, the parties agreed on timelines for the submission of particulars and production regarding the termination of the grievor's employment.

The arbitrator issued a consent order directing the employer to provide disclosure by December 2, 2024, the union to provide full written particulars by December 16, 2024, and the employer to advise of any preliminary motions by February 28, 2025.

The Union grieved the termination of the Claimant's long-term disability benefits.

The Claimant, who had previously experienced a major depressive episode attributed to workplace harassment, refused to participate in a gradual return-to-work plan at her home position, citing fears of a relapse.

The Arbitrator found that the medical evidence indicated the Claimant's condition was in full remission and she was capable of performing the essential duties of her occupation.

The Arbitrator concluded that the rehabilitation plan proposed by the insurer was reasonable and that the Claimant was not totally disabled at the time her benefits were terminated.

The grievance was dismissed.

The University of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to dismantle a protest encampment set up by students and others on Front Campus.

The protesters argued the encampment was a protected exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the University established a strong prima facie case of trespass and ejectment.

The court held that the protesters' appropriation of University property to the exclusion of others constituted irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the University, as the injunction only prohibited camping and erecting structures, while allowing the protesters to continue demonstrating elsewhere on campus.

In an alternative analysis, the court found that the Charter does not apply to the University's management of its property, and even if it did, the trespass notice was a justified limit under section 1.

The parties convened for a mediation/arbitration regarding a grievance alleging violations of the collective agreement, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Human Rights Code.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to a procedural schedule for prehearing production and the exchange of witness declarations.

The arbitrator issued a case management decision formalizing the agreed-upon manner of proceeding and schedule.