Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a human rights application based on facts that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance.

The applicant objected to the deferral, arguing the grievance process could take years and might result in a settlement that does not protect him from future discrimination.

The respondent supported deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its general practice of deferring applications where an active grievance raises the same facts and human rights issues.

The respondent employer brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings to dismiss parts of the applicant's human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment, age discrimination, and a poisoned work environment culminating in her termination.

The Tribunal found that the allegations of age discrimination were tied to the timely termination allegation.

Furthermore, the allegations of sexual harassment formed the basis of a poisoned work environment claim, which existed within the one-year period prior to filing.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Labour regarding potential conflicts of interest involving Ontario Labour Relations Board employees providing private arbitration services.

The Ministry denied access to several records, claiming they were excluded under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that one record was exempt as a Cabinet record under section 12(1)(b).

The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records related to employment matters in which the Ministry had a legal interest, and that disclosure of the remaining record would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The appellant sought access to records related to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) investigation that led to his dismissal.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, and used in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest, satisfying the requirements of section 65(6)3.

The exception in section 65(7)1 did not apply, and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to deny access to a consultant's report regarding the operation of an office where the appellant was formerly employed.

The Ministry claimed the record was excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the record was prepared on behalf of the Ministry in relation to communications about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has a legal interest.

As all requirements of section 65(6)3 were met, the record was excluded from the scope of the Act, and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a Ministry employee, requested access to an Engineering Development Program Audit Report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded under section 65(6) of the Act as they related to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared on behalf of the Ministry in relation to communications about a training program, which constituted an employment-related matter.

The Inquiry Officer also found that the Ministry had a legal interest in the matter, as the findings could affect its legal rights or obligations regarding fair hiring practices.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested information regarding the number of OAG-6 positions in the Ministry, including position titles and how many were bilingual.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the labour relations and employment-related matters exclusion in section 65(6)3.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were prepared for communications about labour relations in which the Ministry has a legal interest, specifically regarding classification levels and compliance with the Public Services Act.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, and the records were found to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant, a CUPE tri-local committee, appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to certain records related to funding and internal correspondence regarding four agencies.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were responsive to the request and not excluded from the Act under section 65(6) because the Ministry did not have a legal interest in the agencies' labour relations.

However, the Officer upheld the exemption of salary information under section 21(1) as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and exempted other records under section 17(1) because their disclosure would significantly interfere with the agencies' ongoing labour negotiations.

A Correctional Officer appealed the Ministry's decision to deny access to an internal security report regarding workplace incidents.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used in relation to meetings and communications about an employment-related matter in which the Ministry had an interest.

As none of the exceptions in section 65(7) applied, the records were excluded from the scope of the Act and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, appealed a decision denying him access to correctional operational records related to his employment.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6) because they were maintained for proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The appellant also argued that section 65(6) violated his equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter by preventing him from proving racial discrimination.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records fell within the section 65(6) exclusion and that the provision did not have a discriminatory effect under the Charter.

The appellant submitted a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the County of Renfrew for records relating to an incident at his wife's place of employment.

The County denied access, claiming the records fell outside the scope of the Act under section 52(3).

The appellant appealed.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected and used in relation to an investigation, discipline, and a grievance, which are employment-related matters in which the County has an interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and the records were held to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant appealed the Lambton County Board of Education's decision to deny access to records relating to the appointment of supervisory officers.

The Board claimed the records were excluded from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 52(3).

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the Board had an interest.

As a result, the records fell within the section 52(3)3 exclusion and the Board's decision was upheld.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Attorney General for records relating to an investigation into her allegations of workplace harassment and favouritism.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Act under the newly enacted section 65(6) as employment-related records.

The appellant argued her request was initiated orally before the legislative amendments took effect.

The Inquiry Officer found that the formal request was made after the amendments came into force and that the records were collected in relation to employment-related matters in which the Ministry had an interest.

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant made a freedom of information request for records relating to an OPSEU strike, essential services, and related Ontario Labour Relations Board proceedings.

The Management Board Secretariat denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Act under the labour relations exclusions in sections 65(6)1 and 65(6)2.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the decision for most records, finding they were collected or prepared in relation to court proceedings or negotiations relating to labour relations.

However, the final agreement between the union and the employer was ordered disclosed as it fell within the exception in section 65(7)1.

A former employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services requested access to his personnel file and other records.

The Ministry denied access under section 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records were excluded from the Act as they related to labour relations and employment proceedings.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records were used and maintained in relation to ongoing proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The appellant, an employee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, requested access to records relating to a workplace harassment investigation and subsequent review.

The Ministry denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The adjudicator found that the records were prepared by the Ministry in relation to meetings and discussions about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest.

The Ministry's decision was upheld, and the records were found to be excluded from the Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of the Attorney General's decision to deny access to records relating to two job competitions for which she was an unsuccessful candidate.

The Ministry claimed the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(6).

The Assistant Commissioner found that the job competition records were collected, prepared, maintained, or used in relation to meetings, discussions, or communications about employment-related matters in which the Ministry has an interest, specifically regarding its legal obligations under the Human Rights Code.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Ministry's decision was upheld.

A Ministry employee complained that a document outlining his grievance against management was disclosed without his consent to the Assistant to the Branch Director and subsequently to Human Resources staff.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the record contained the complainant's personal information under section 2(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer concluded that the Ministry failed to demonstrate that the disclosures were necessary and proper in the discharge of its functions under section 42(d) of the Act, and recommended the Ministry review its chain-of-command practices to ensure disclosure is only on a need-to-know basis.

The complainant, an employee of the County, alleged that the County breached her privacy by disclosing her suspension letter to union representatives and by collecting her personal financial information.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the information was personal information.

The disclosure of the suspension letter to the supervisor and CAO was permitted, but the disclosure to the union representatives and the disclosure of her home address violated the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner also found that the collection of financial information, if it occurred, would have been permitted for law enforcement purposes.

The complainant, a former city employee, alleged that the City improperly collected her medical diagnosis on return-to-work forms in violation of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Compliance Review Officer found that the forms contained personal information.

The collection of information on the 'Fitness Assessment - Return to Work' form was necessary for administering the short-term disability program and complied with the Act.

However, the collection of a medical diagnosis and treatment details on the 'Attending Physician's Statement' was not necessary and violated section 28(2).

The City also failed to provide proper notice of collection under section 29(2).