Ben Ratelband

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars of the application, arguing the allegations were framed in general terms.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the applicant to provide particulars of the allegations, as the application lacked specific facts regarding the circumstances, timing, and individuals involved in the alleged discrimination.

The grievor, a Learner Services Officer, was discharged for fraudulently soliciting charitable donations from private companies on behalf of the Ministry and the Children's Wish Foundation, and expropriating the donations for personal use.

The grievor used Ministry letterhead and his position to obtain complimentary passes to attractions.

The Grievance Settlement Board found just cause for discharge, as the grievor's actions were premeditated, repeated, and constituted a serious breach of trust.

Applying the Reville factors, the Board found no basis to substitute a lesser penalty, noting the ongoing pattern of misconduct and the grievor's lack of candour during the investigation.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union appealed from a Divisional Court judgment quashing a labour board decision that judges' secretaries were not excluded from bargaining-unit membership by the conflict-of-interest provision in the governing statute.

The Court of Appeal held that the core issue was a labour relations question within the Board's specialized jurisdiction, not a freestanding constitutional question, although judicial independence formed part of the context.

Applying a patent unreasonableness standard to the Board's ultimate decision, the court found the Board's conclusion was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the Divisional Court order was set aside, and the judicial review application was dismissed, with no costs.

The appellant Crown appealed a refusal by the motions judge to withdraw her prior decision dismissing a stay motion in an employment-related proceeding brought by a former Crown employee.

The Court of Appeal held that a reasonable apprehension of bias arose because the motions judge was herself pursuing ongoing employment-related litigation against the Crown while adjudicating a similar claim advanced against the same party.

Applying the governing bias principles, the court found that a disqualifying interest is broader than pecuniary or proprietary interest and includes some relevant interest in the subject matter.

The appearance of impartiality was compromised, both orders were set aside, and the stay motion was remitted to be reheard by a different judge.

No costs were awarded.

The grievor was discharged for allegedly soliciting private companies for charitable donations on behalf of the Ministry and a charity, and keeping the donations.

At arbitration, the employer sought to introduce evidence of additional similar solicitations discovered after the discharge.

The union objected, arguing the employer was limited to the grounds relied upon at the time of discharge and had failed to provide full disclosure as required by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the evidence was admissible, as it related to the original reasons for discharge and was not known to the employer at the time.

While the employer delayed in disclosing the final investigation report, the appropriate remedy was an adjournment rather than exclusion of the evidence.

The grievor filed an overtime grievance seeking premium pay rather than compensating time off.

The employer argued that overtime pay was precluded by the local appendix to the sectoral framework agreement under the Social Contract Act.

The union did not contest this position.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that in the absence of a dispute between the parties to the collective agreement, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor filed a classification grievance.

The employer contended that a grievance dealing with classification is barred from arbitration by both the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the local appendix to the sectoral framework agreement under the Social Contract Act.

The union did not contest the employer's position.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that in the absence of any dispute between the parties to the collective agreement, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor filed a classification grievance.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that classification grievances are barred from arbitration by the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the local appendix to the sectoral framework agreement under the Social Contract Act.

The union did not contest this position.

In the absence of a dispute between the parties, the Vice Chair found he lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance and dismissed it.

The grievor filed a classification grievance.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that classification grievances are barred from arbitration by the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the local appendix to the sectoral framework agreement under the Social Contract Act.

The union did not contest this position.

The Vice Chair dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

In a labour appeal from a Divisional Court order quashing an arbitration award, the appellant union argued that the arbitration board had adequately resolved the retroactivity issue arising from the repeal of a statutory provision governing appointment to a provincial schools authority.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that determination of retroactivity was essential to disposition of the grievance and that the board failed to address all relevant considerations.

The appeal was therefore dismissed and the matter remained remitted to the board for redetermination of retroactivity.

A dissent would have found the board's reasons, read as a whole, sufficient to decide the issue and would have reinstated the award.