Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiffs and the Plan Administrator brought a motion in a class proceeding regarding the wind-up of a pension plan.

They sought approval for a plan to use settlement funds recovered from a defaulting defendant to search for unlocated pension plan members, prioritizing those with the largest entitlements, and to pay any remaining unclaimed funds into court.

The court approved the plan, finding it sensible and fair, and ordered that the Plan Administrator be discharged from its obligations under the Pension Benefits Act upon payment of the remaining funds into court.

The complainant, whose home position was in an OPSEU bargaining unit, filed a complaint regarding her compensation during a temporary assignment to an acting management position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant remained a member of the bargaining unit during her temporary assignment.

The Board agreed, finding that under Regulation 378/07 and the collective agreement, the complainant continued to pay union dues and was covered by the collective agreement, rendering her ineligible to file a complaint with the Board.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a 4% merit increase.

The matter was scheduled for a mediation session, but neither the complainant nor her representative attended.

The employer's counsel was present.

The Vice-Chair noted that the Board's rules permit disposing of a complaint when a party fails to attend.

However, because it was unclear if the complainant was aware of the scheduled mediation, the Board declined to dismiss the complaint immediately.

Instead, the Board directed the complainant to provide a written explanation for her non-attendance and to confirm whether she wished to proceed with her complaint.

The complainant and her representative failed to attend a scheduled mediation session before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board noted its authority under Rule 15 to dismiss the complaint for non-attendance but declined to do so immediately, as it was unclear whether the complainant was aware of the scheduled date.

The Board directed the complainant to provide a written explanation for her non-attendance and to confirm whether she wished to proceed with her complaint, failing which the complaint could be dismissed.

The plaintiff, the deceased's former common-law spouse, claimed entitlement to a $190,000 life insurance policy provided by the deceased's employer.

The deceased died intestate, and the estate trustees disputed the plaintiff's claim, arguing the estate was the beneficiary.

The estate trustees moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment.

The court dismissed both motions, applying the Hryniak framework to conclude that granting summary judgment would not fully dispose of the action, as claims against the employer would remain, creating a risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings on credibility.

The complainant was terminated from his employment and sought to file a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

Shortly before the statutory deadline to file, the complainant's lawyer passed away.

The complainant notified the employer that he was seeking new counsel but did not file the complaint until after the 14-day limitation period expired.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was out of time.

The Board held that under Regulation 378/07, it no longer has the statutory authority to extend time limits, making compliance a strict precondition to jurisdiction.

The Board also rejected the complainant's argument that the employer's sympathetic response to the lawyer's death constituted an estoppel or waiver of the time limits.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional centre, filed a grievance alleging he was placed 'on call' without compensation from January 2015 to January 2016 due to delayed vacation approvals and requirements to provide contact information during a labour dispute.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's delay in approving vacations was a reasonable exercise of management discretion and did not place the complainant on call for the entire year.

However, the Board held that the employer's explicit requirement for the complainant to provide a contact number and remain available for recall during his approved vacation periods constituted being 'on call' under the Compensation Directive.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the complainant was awarded on-call pay for hours outside his regularly scheduled work periods during approved vacations, less any stand-by pay already received.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding concerning a three-day suspension.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the Tribunal could provide swifter action and remedies not available at arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the central issue would be addressed at the upcoming grievance arbitration and that concurrent proceedings could lead to conflicting factual conclusions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming his pay was reduced and he was constructively dismissed.

The applicant subsequently requested to defer the Tribunal proceedings pending the conclusion of a related civil action he commenced against the respondent in the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, given the overlap in factual background and remedies sought.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance based on the same facts and issues had been filed on the applicant's behalf and referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The complainant filed an application with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer advised it had no position to mediate and requested the matter proceed to arbitration.

The Vice-Chair directed the matter be set down for arbitration, noting it would be an inefficient use of resources to schedule mediation.

The Vice-Chair also issued interim orders directing the complainant to provide any remaining particulars and documentary material, and directing the employer to provide its documentary material and response to the application.

The complainants, Operational Managers who had been on acting assignments as Deputy Superintendents, filed a complaint seeking compensation for on-call duties performed during their assignments.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the notice of proposal to file a complaint was filed well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in Regulation 378/07, as the complainants were aware of the working conditions at the outset of their assignments.

The Board dismissed the complaint as untimely, noting that even if timely, the complainants had effectively waived their right to claim compensation by accepting the terms without challenge during the assignment.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to its oral reasons released on April 24, 2015, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal.

On consent of counsel, the Court added a declaration that the appellant is the sole surviving spouse of the deceased and is entitled to receive all surviving spouse pension benefits from the respondent benefit administrators corporation.

In this pension class proceeding arising from a workforce downsizing, the plaintiffs moved to add common issues alleging the administrator-employer operated under a material conflict of interest while making and implementing surplus-related decisions affecting departing plan members.

The court held the amended theory under ss. 8(10) and 8(11) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act disclosed a viable cause of action and was not defeated by the defendants' argument that members of an ongoing plan had no proprietary right in actuarial surplus.

The proposed conflict issues were common to the certified class, would materially advance the litigation, and did not turn primarily on individualized reliance analysis at the certification stage.

The motion was granted, with directions to file a corrected amended statement of claim and an updated litigation plan.

The complainant requested an unpaid leave of absence but did not receive a timely answer from the employer, causing her to miss an employment opportunity.

She filed a complaint with the Deputy Minister outside the 14-day time limit prescribed by section 8 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction due to the missed time limit.

The Board held that the 14-day notice requirement is mandatory and a precondition to its jurisdiction.

As the Board has no statutory authority to extend this time limit, the complaint was dismissed.

Several Operational Managers at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre filed grievances alleging that the employer failed to provide a harassment-free workplace, pointing to derogatory and disrespectful comments posted on a union local's blog.

The complainants argued that the employer's failure to discipline the bloggers or bring in a restoration team condoned the behaviour and breached the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaints, finding that senior management's response—which included issuing joint memos, consulting with the union, and successfully having the blog password-protected—was reasonable in the circumstances and did not constitute a breach of the complainants' terms and conditions of employment.

The deceased was a member of a pension plan who died before the commencement of his deferred pension.

At the time of his death, he was living with a common law spouse but remained legally married to his separated spouse, whom he had designated as a beneficiary along with their daughters.

The Court of Appeal held that because the deceased and his legally married spouse were living separate and apart, the spousal priority under s. 48(1) of the Pension Benefits Act did not apply.

Consequently, the designated beneficiaries were entitled to the death benefit under s. 48(6).

In this human rights appeal, the court clarified the scope of the leave endorsement and held that the appeal did not extend to a review of the finding of systemic discrimination.

The only issue properly before the court was the effect, if any, of an arbitration award on the jurisdiction and power of the Board of Inquiry to grant reinstatement, in light of the jurisprudence such as Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The matter was adjourned to permit the parties to file fresh factums addressing that sole jurisdictional question.

No costs were awarded for the attendance.

The grievor, a Senior Policy Advisor, filed a grievance alleging that a job competition was awarded without due consideration of merit and was influenced by discrimination.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievance should be dismissed because the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, asserting that the only available remedy would be a re-run of the competition.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that it has jurisdiction to hear complaints related to position competitions under the Public Service Act, although it noted that the usual remedy for a flawed competition is indeed a remission back to the employer to re-run the competition.

The grievor, a management-level employee, filed a grievance after receiving a 3% merit increase without the formal notification or consultation required by the employer's Manual of Administration.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the Manual of Administration does not constitute 'working conditions or terms of employment' under Regulation 881 of the Public Service Act.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that 'working conditions or terms of employment' must be interpreted broadly and encompasses the integrated process of performance appraisal, merit pay determination, and employee consultation.

The Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits.