David Wynne Wright

The offender, an anesthesiologist, was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault against female patients during surgical procedures while the victims were sedated and unable to resist.

The court emphasized the extreme breach of trust inherent in abusing a position of medical authority over vulnerable patients in an operating room.

Aggravating factors included the number of victims, the sexual nature of the assaults, the deliberate exploitation of sedation, and the profound psychological harm to victims.

While the offender had no prior criminal record and strong community support, the court held that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount.

Applying the totality principle to multiple counts, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

The grievor, a correctional officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to reasonably accommodate him at the Central East Correctional Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer breached its duty to accommodate by denying him access to the secure part of the facility, restricting his initial post options without considering broader duties, failing to consider modifying a schedule to permit him to work in a specific area, and failing to reasonably police and enforce the smoking policy.

The Board awarded compensation for lost wages during a mental health absence caused by the Employer's conduct, as well as $18,000 in general damages and $12,000 for mental anguish.

The accused, an anesthesiologist, was charged with 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients.

The assaults allegedly occurred while the patients were under conscious sedation during various surgeries.

The defence argued that the accused lacked the opportunity to commit the offences undetected and that the anesthetic drugs caused sexual hallucinations, rendering the complainants' memories unreliable.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the operating room draping provided sufficient concealment and that the drugs administered do not cause hallucinations of sexual assault.

Relying on the objective improbability of coincidence as similar fact evidence, the court found the accused guilty on all 21 counts.

The accused, an anesthesiologist, was charged with 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients under his care during surgeries.

The Crown alleged that the accused used the cover of surgical draping and the patients' state of conscious sedation to commit the assaults undetected.

The defence argued that the assaults were physically impossible, could not have occurred without detection, and that the patients' memories were unreliable due to drug-induced hallucinations.

The court rejected the defence arguments, finding that the accused had the opportunity to commit the offences and that the drugs administered do not cause sexual hallucinations.

Relying on the objective improbability of coincidence as similar fact evidence, the court found the accused guilty on all 21 counts.

Three correctional officers grieved their discharges.

One officer was discharged for slapping an inmate during a strip search and covering it up, while the other two were discharged for witnessing the slap and covering it up.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the slap did occur, relying on the testimony of another officer who came forward despite the 'code of silence'.

The Board upheld the discharge of the officer who slapped the inmate due to the serious nature of excessive force and his continued denial.

However, the Board mitigated the discharges of the other two officers to reinstatement without compensation, benefits, or accumulation of seniority, given their long and unblemished service records.

In a criminal trial involving multiple allegations of sexual assault by an anesthesiologist against sedated patients during surgery, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility and scope of defence expert evidence concerning the effects of psychotropic drugs on perception and memory.

Applying the framework from R. v. Mohan and R. v. Abbey, the court assessed relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper qualification, followed by a cost‑benefit analysis of probative value versus prejudice.

The court held that three defence experts—including two anesthesiologists and a psychiatrist—met the threshold admissibility requirements.

Although limitations existed regarding aspects of their expertise, those limitations affected weight rather than admissibility.

The experts’ testimony was admitted subject to general limits preventing opinions outside their expertise, including speculation about surgical practices or motives for the alleged offences.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a union grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to allow an elected union representative to attend joint committee meetings in person due to alleged safety concerns.

The employer insisted the representative participate by teleconference.

The employer argued the facts alleged did not establish a prima facie violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the facts as alleged were capable of establishing a violation of the collective agreement, and directed that the grievance proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Employer sought to introduce written and verbal statements from inmates regarding an alleged assault by a correctional officer, which led to the discharge of three officers.

The Union opposed the admission of these hearsay statements.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the statements did not meet the tests of necessity and reliability under the principled approach to hearsay, as the Employer failed to show efforts to obtain testimony through alternative means for deported witnesses, and the statements lacked sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.

However, the Board admitted the statements into the record under section 48(12)(f) of the Labour Relations Act, leaving the determination of their weight to the conclusion of the hearing.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its counsel had to travel to the United States to attend to a serious family medical emergency.

The Union opposed the request, citing previous delays and the grievor's interest in concluding the matter.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, finding that the unexpected family emergency warranted the delay and that it would be unreasonable to require the Employer to assign new counsel on short notice.

The applicant sought judicial review of two arbitration awards dealing with return to work grievances following a strike by academic staff.

The arbitration board had concluded that the collective agreement's workload provisions did not apply and developed its own principles to award additional compensation.

The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it ignored the language of the Return to Work Protocol and the collective agreement, which did not confer jurisdiction to create new compensation criteria.

The application for judicial review was granted, the awards were quashed, and the grievances were remitted to a different arbitration board.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and a poisoned work environment based on race and colour.

The respondent employer and the intervenor union requested that the application be deferred because the parties had previously entered into a binding settlement before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) regarding the same workplace circumstances, and the GSB Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues arising from the settlement.

The Tribunal found sufficient overlap between the application and the grievance settlement, and deferred the application pending the completion of proceedings before the GSB to avoid parallel proceedings.

During the hearing of grievances regarding the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's disability, an evidentiary dispute arose.

The Union sought to put two documents to a management witness during cross-examination and to call reply evidence based on his responses.

The Employer objected to the admission of the documents and the proposed reply evidence.

The Vice-Chair exercised his discretion to permit the Union to put the documents to the witness and to call the reply evidence, noting that relevance and weight would be determined later.

The union requested a full, independent investigation into the provenance of anonymous racist letters that created a poisoned work environment at a correctional facility.

The appointed investigator provided a report, but the union was not satisfied and reiterated its request.

In preparation for the hearing on this request, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to confirm whether any other forensic behavioural profiles existed and to provide a detailed written summary of the steps taken to investigate a specific handwritten letter found in 2010.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement, specifically Appendix 38, by laying off System Officers while retaining IT Consultants to perform work the laid-off employees were capable of doing.

The Union argued the Employer was required to assign the IT work to the System Officers before laying them off.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Appendix 38 only restricts the use of IT Consultants if it 'directly results' in a layoff.

The Board concluded there was no direct causal link between the work performed by the consultants and the layoffs of the specific employees, as their original positions had been eliminated for unrelated operational reasons.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour.

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing the allegations were resolved by a prior grievance settlement.

The applicant's union, OPSEU, requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted OPSEU intervenor status, noting its significant interest in the allegations and potential impact on its members.

The Tribunal also directed a teleconference hearing to address the respondent's request for dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

In four individual grievances challenging discipline issued to correctional officers, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the Employer to produce all documents it intends to rely upon.

The Board also ordered the Employer to provide a list of any further arguably relevant documents, subject to conditions restricting their use, distribution, and requiring their return at the conclusion of the litigation.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer engaged in reprisals against a health and safety inspector for issuing orders contrary to management's wishes, violating section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that an inspector is not a 'worker' and the Ministry is not an 'employer' under section 50 when the inspector is enforcing the Act regarding the safety of others.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the statutory definitions apply and the inspector is a worker protected by section 50, though this does not isolate inspectors from management direction or discipline for failing to conform to standards.

The Union brought a motion to allow Local Union officers to testify about management's failure to enforce a workplace smoking policy without disclosing the names of bargaining unit members they observed smoking.

The Union argued that compelling disclosure would undermine members' confidence in their representatives.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Employer's right to fully cross-examine witnesses on a highly relevant issue outweighed any potential labour relations interest in protecting the confidence of Union members in their representatives.

In an ongoing grievance arbitration concerning racist letters in the workplace, the Grievance Settlement Board received a confidential oral interim report from an appointed investigator.

The Board directed the investigator to complete the review and provide a written report by May 31, 2012, after which a further decision will be issued.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged.

In a previous decision, the Grievance Settlement Board substituted a suspension for the discharge and directed the parties to agree on its length.

The parties could not agree, with the employer seeking a 10-month suspension and the union proposing six months.

The Board determined that a six-month suspension was appropriate, finding it sufficient for deterrence and corrective purposes, and ordered the grievor to be made whole for the period between the end of the suspension and his return to work.