Craig Flood

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination requested to amend the Application to add additional remedies.

The respondent did not oppose the proposed amendment, although it denied the applicant's entitlement to the new remedies.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Application, noting the lack of opposition and the Tribunal's rules permitting amendments to provide for fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The Union filed a grievance challenging the discipline imposed on correctional officers following a health and safety work refusal and work stoppage.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.

The Union argued that the timeliness provisions in the Collective Agreement did not apply because the grievance was filed pursuant to a specific Memorandum of Agreement that gave the Union an independent right to grieve.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the parties did not intend to exclude the application of the Collective Agreement's timeliness provisions when they drafted the Memorandum.

The Employer's preliminary objection regarding timeliness was upheld.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add further particulars and a new allegation of reprisal.

The respondent consented to the addition of particulars but opposed the reprisal allegation, which was based on the respondent rescinding a settlement offer after the application was filed.

The Tribunal allowed the unopposed amendments but deferred the request to add the reprisal ground to the hearing adjudicator, finding that it raised evidentiary issues and concerns about the confidentiality of negotiations that should be determined at the hearing.

The union brought a motion claiming the employer fundamentally breached a Memorandum of Settlement by having a representative from the grievor's former workplace contact him directly regarding his benefits claim, which exacerbated his mental stress.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's actions in seeking administrative assistance to fulfill its obligations under the settlement did not constitute a breach of the settlement's confidentiality or assistance provisions.

The motion to set aside the settlement was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance after the employer directed an occupational health and safety inspector, under threat of discipline, to attend and testify at an examination for discovery in a civil action against the Crown.

The union argued that section 63(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act makes inspectors non-compellable witnesses.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the inspector was being compelled, the privilege against testifying does not reside with the inspector personally.

Reading the Act as a whole, the Board concluded that the employer (the Crown) has the discretion to waive the privilege and direct the inspector to testify in order to defend the integrity of the inspection process.

The respondent Union requested an order directing the applicant to provide further particulars regarding his marital status discrimination claim and to produce unedited recordings, medical documentation, and his complete employment file.

The Union also requested that the respondent City produce documents relating to performance evaluations.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the applicant had already provided sufficient particulars in his witness statements and had disclosed the arguably relevant materials.

The Tribunal also found that the City's performance evaluation policies were not arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that his position was reclassified for discriminatory reasons.

The Greater Essex County District School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) ruling.

The OLRB found that the school board's construction management activities fell within the definition of 'construction industry' under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and that receiving compensation for these activities constituted operating a business.

The OLRB also found the school board and other property owners were 'unrelated persons' under the 'non-construction employer' definition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the OLRB's decision reasonable and its reasons sufficient.

The moving party brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court to dismiss the responding party's judicial review application on the ground of delay.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, holding that while a single judge has jurisdiction to dismiss for delay in clear cases, the equitable and discretionary nature of judicial review generally requires that the issue of delay be determined by the full panel hearing the application on its merits.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the moving party's right to raise the delay argument before the panel.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault in 1995 based on the testimony of a single witness.

After a remand from the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court of Appeal considered the admissibility of fresh evidence.

The Court found that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to use available evidence that could have undermined the credibility of the Crown's sole witness, including evidence of a motive to lie and failure to report the incident.

The Court admitted the fresh evidence, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial, concluding that the ineffective assistance resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Air Canada sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that directed it to offer 90 denied Voluntary Separation Program (VSP) applications to eligible employees.

Air Canada argued the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by modifying the collective agreement and interfering with management rights.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the arbitrator was properly interpreting the quantitative language of the Memorandum of Understanding, which required the maximum number of VSPs to be granted.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The union brought a motion to vary an order of a single judge that permitted the employer to file affidavit evidence containing notes of a labour arbitration hearing on an application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and struck the affidavit evidence, finding that the motions judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the Keeprite standard.

The court held that affidavit evidence is only admissible in rare circumstances to show a complete absence of evidence on an essential point or a breach of natural justice, neither of which were established by the employer.

The Union raised a preliminary objection arguing that the grievor's termination was void ab initio because the Employer violated the union representation clause (Article 26.3) of the collective agreement.

A shift leader had confronted the grievor about a co-worker's harassment allegations without offering union representation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the shift leader was acting as a representative of management and the meeting triggered Article 26.3.

However, because the termination was also based on subsequent alleged misconduct not discussed at that meeting, the termination was not void ab initio.

The Employer was merely precluded from relying on the allegations discussed at the improper meeting.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the departure of a 'key man' to the applicant company constituted a sale of a business under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the Board's specialized expertise and the strong privative clauses in the Act.

The Court found there was evidence to support the Board's factual findings and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent unions.

The union brought a motion to bifurcate the hearing of a discharge grievance to determine as a preliminary matter whether the employer violated the collective agreement by meeting with the grievor without union representation.

The employer opposed the motion, arguing that the evidence required to determine the preliminary issue was inextricably intertwined with the evidence on the merits.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the employer was entitled to establish its position by demonstrating the totality of its investigation, and that the overall considerations of practicality, economy, efficiency, and fairness did not favour bifurcation.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging that the employer's use of a sign-up sheet to canvass for overtime violated the collective agreement.

The collective agreement required that overtime be offered to full-time employees on a rotational basis before being offered to part-time or casual employees.

The arbitrator found that the sign-up process, which offered only 'possible' overtime simultaneously to all employees and required employees to take the initiative to sign up, was inconsistent with the mandatory language of the collective agreement.

The grievance was allowed and a declaration issued that the sign-up process violated the collective agreement.

The employer and the union engaged in negotiations regarding the grievor's resignation and a severance package.

The employer argued that an oral agreement was reached when it agreed to include a waiver of a WSIB overpayment in the proposed memorandum of agreement.

The union argued that no final agreement was reached, as the grievor's signature on a written document was a precondition.

The arbitrator found that the communications between the parties did not result in a binding agreement, as the union had made it clear that the grievor's signed acknowledgement was required before it would agree to the settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision determining that the parties did not reach a settlement concerning the termination of the grievor's employment with the LCBO in June 2003.

The Vice-Chair remained seised with the question of remedies required to put the grievor back in the position he would have been in had the employer not taken the position that he had resigned, with reasons to follow.

In a grievance alleging that scheduling employees to work alone on Friday evenings violates the collective agreement's health and safety provisions, the parties raised preliminary motions.

The arbitrator granted the union's request to take a view of the workplace, finding it would assist in assessing the physical setting.

The union's request for production of documents relating to other store locations was partially granted, limited to documents concerning other 'D' stores and general surveys.

The employer's request for particulars was granted, requiring the union to provide details of any specific incidents it intends to rely on.

The union filed grievances challenging the employer's attendance review policy.

In a preliminary decision, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that a separate grievance filed by another employee be heard together with the current grievances, as they involved the same parties and policy.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of the employer's exercise of management rights in creating the policy, as the collective agreement did not contain an implied term requiring reasonableness.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction to determine if the policy conflicted with specific employee rights or the Human Rights Code.

Two government employees were dismissed after being convicted of sexually assaulting people under their care.

The appellant union grieved their dismissals, and the grievance settlement board ruled that the criminal convictions were only prima facie evidence of guilt, allowing the union to lead rebuttal evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the doctrine of abuse of process bars the relitigation of the employees' guilt for the offences for which they were convicted.

The appeal was dismissed.