David Wynne Wright

A nineteen-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery but admitted to six knifepoint robberies of young women committed over a two-month period in winter 2013-2014.

The offender drove the getaway vehicle while his co-accused committed the robberies.

The Crown sought eighteen months to two years less a day imprisonment, while the defence sought six to nine months with potential credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The court imposed ninety days intermittent imprisonment on each count, three years probation with strict conditions, 240 hours community service, and an increased victim surcharge of $8,000, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation prospects for a youthful first offender with no prior record.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision which held that the OLRB had jurisdiction under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act to determine the date of a strike vote.

The union argued that the union had the exclusive right to set the date and that the OLRB's power to supervise the vote did not include setting the date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable and that the plain meaning of the authority to supervise and manage a vote included the right to set the date.

The grievor filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability by denying him health reassignment to three disputed positions: Customer Care Team Advisor, Administrative Assistant, and Correspondence Coordinator.

The parties agreed to a written hearing protocol to determine solely whether the grievor was qualified for these positions.

The Vice-Chair assessed the grievor's skills and experience against the minimum necessary qualifications for each role.

The Vice-Chair found the grievor was not qualified for the Customer Care Team Advisor or Correspondence Coordinator positions, dismissing those portions of the grievances.

However, the Vice-Chair concluded the grievor possessed the minimum necessary qualifications for the Administrative Assistant position, remitting that matter back to the parties for discussion.

The union brought a motion for summary judgment alleging the employer breached minutes of settlement.

The settlement placed the grievor in a 12-month temporary assignment as a Probation and Parole Officer, requiring him to complete training and meet job requirements to become permanent, or be returned to his home position as a Correctional Officer.

The grievor remained in the temporary assignment for 21 months before being returned to his home position.

The union argued that by keeping him beyond 12 months, the employer deemed him permanent.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement language did not create an automatic deeming provision and that whether the grievor met the job requirements remained a factual issue to be tried.

The union brought a motion arguing that the grievor's acquittal on criminal charges for assaulting an inmate was dispositive of his grievances regarding his dismissal and the employer's refusal to indemnify his legal fees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that an acquittal in a criminal trial is not binding on civil or arbitration proceedings due to the different standards of proof and purposes of the proceedings.

The applicant filed multiple human rights applications against her employer and unions alleging discrimination based on disability, failure to accommodate, and failure to properly represent her in grievances.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her applications to include recent events including her termination.

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations against OPSEU and most allegations against Unifor as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding no evidence that the unions' actions were discriminatory.

The allegations against the employer and the remaining allegations against Unifor regarding post-termination events were allowed to proceed to a hearing, where the potential application of section 45.1 of the Code will be considered.

The grievor, a Black correctional officer, alleged multiple incidents of racial discrimination and harassment at the Toronto Jail and Toronto South Detention Centre.

She claimed the employer failed to investigate her complaints or respond appropriately, perpetuating a poisoned work environment.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer breached the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) by failing to advise the grievor of the outcome of an investigation into a co-worker's conduct for 15 months, awarding $3,500 in general damages.

The Board also found the employer breached a safe departure Protocol by unilaterally requiring her to return to work without an accommodation meeting, and violated the collective agreement by failing to investigate a separate incident.

The remaining allegations of discrimination and harassment were dismissed.

The applicants, female soccer players participating in the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination regarding the requirement to play on artificial turf.

They subsequently sought to amend their application to include allegations of reprisal and requested an interim remedy ordering the respondents to cease and desist from threatening reprisals.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, concluding that a cease and desist order was unnecessary because section 8 of the Human Rights Code already provides clear protection against reprisal.

The applicants requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to expedite proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, holding that under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, reconsideration is only available for final decisions.

A refusal to expedite proceedings is a procedural decision, not a final decision, and is therefore not subject to reconsideration.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the grievor to sign a consent authorizing the release of his medical records to determine if an independent medical examination (IME) is appropriate.

The Board noted that failure to sign the consent would constitute a failure to cooperate under the parties' Memorandum of Settlement.

The Board reiterated concerns about whether the grievor could safely return to work, necessitating potential physical and psychological evaluations.

The applicants, women soccer players participating in the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination because they were required to play on artificial turf, unlike men's teams.

They requested an expedited proceeding to ensure grass fields could be installed before the tournament.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicants had delayed filing their application for over 18 months after the tournament schedule and venues were announced.

The Tribunal held that granting an expedited hearing in these circumstances would unfairly prejudice other applicants waiting for their cases to be heard.

The parties disputed whether the grievor posed a safety risk if returned to work, following an independent medical examination by a forensic psychiatrist.

The arbitrator reviewed the medical report, which concluded that the grievor did not present an acute risk in the short term and was unlikely to overtly threaten others or act out physically in the long term, despite potential interpersonal struggles and parasuicidal gestures.

The arbitrator found that the most reasonable interpretation of the report was that there is no safety risk if the grievor is returned to work.

The grievor, a union president, filed two grievances.

The first alleged unjust discipline arising from a letter ordering him to attend an allegation meeting after he refused to name bargaining unit members he saw smoking in the workplace.

The second alleged the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to promptly notify him that he was named as a respondent in a workplace harassment complaint.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both grievances.

The Board found the letter was non-disciplinary in nature, though it ordered one problematic paragraph removed.

Regarding the harassment complaint, the Board found no evidence that the delay in notification caused any risk or harm to the grievor.

The parties disputed the appropriate placement for the grievor, who had medical restrictions preventing him from working past 5:00 p.m. and on weekends.

The union argued the hours of the Video Conferencing position could be adapted without undue hardship, while the employer disagreed.

The arbitrator found that altering the schedules and the resulting extra cost would constitute undue hardship.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement to modify the General Duty Officer position to meet the grievor's restrictions, and the arbitrator directed the employer to place the grievor in that modified position.

The parties agreed to address the outstanding issue of the grievor's placement at the Central East Detention Centre via mediation/arbitration.

Following a conference call to address disputes over how the placement issues should be addressed, the Vice-Chair issued procedural directions.

The directions established the schedule and order of issues to be heard, prioritizing the assessment of the grievor's preferred posts (Video Conferencing and GDO) before considering the employer's proposed alternatives.

As part of ongoing systemic remedies regarding racist hate letters sent to the Toronto Jail, an independent review was conducted by Michael A. Davis.

The Vice-Chair directed that a hearing be convened to consider the Ministry's explanation for not implementing one or more of the recommendations from the Davis report, and to address other matters to optimize the Ministry's investigation.

McMaster University sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision interpreting a collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the agreement required McMaster to consider employees' work on behalf of the union as part of their 'professional service and professional activity' for the purpose of determining merit pay.

McMaster argued this interpretation was unreasonable as it conferred a financial benefit without clear language, created a conflict of interest, and exposed the university to claims of anti-union conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation was within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes and did not create an absurdity.

The Union brought a motion requesting the Grievance Settlement Board to direct the Employer to find a placement for the grievor, a correctional officer with asthma requiring a smoke-free environment, outside of the Central East Correctional Centre (CECC).

The Union alleged the Employer continued to fail to properly accommodate the grievor and enforce the smoking policy.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that the number of smoke exposures had declined, the Employer had successfully assigned the grievor to smoke-free posts, and there was evidence of improved enforcement of the smoking policy.

The Vice-Chair concluded that the circumstances did not establish that the Employer could not properly accommodate the grievor at the CECC.

The applicant, an anesthesiologist convicted of sexually assaulting 21 female patients during surgery, applied for judicial interim release pending his appeal against conviction.

He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

The court found that while the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender into custody, his detention was necessary in the public interest.

The grounds of appeal were deemed weak and unlikely to succeed, and the need for immediate enforcement of the judgment outweighed the need for review given the seriousness of the offences.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a correctional officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour, specifically regarding the employer's failure to prevent a recurrence of racist hate mail.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents and the Union's request for intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the Union non-party intervenor status to address matters of broad application to the workplace.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce certain documents related to the investigation of the racist hate mail, finding them arguably relevant, while deferring other broader production requests until the applicant testifies at the hearing.