David Wynne Wright

The accused was charged with robbery as an aider and abettor.

The Crown's case relied on video surveillance, an oral utterance made upon arrest, and a fingerprint found on a duct tape wrapper in the getaway car.

Following a voir dire, the court excluded the oral utterance under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that police breached the accused's s. 10(b) rights by showing him a surveillance photo to elicit a response before advising him of his right to counsel for the robbery charge.

On the trial merits, the court found that the remaining circumstantial evidence—a general resemblance in the video and the fingerprint—raised a strong suspicion but failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the timeliness of over 200 grievances filed by correctional officers regarding exposure to second hand smoke prior to the institutions going smoke-free in 2001.

The grievances were filed in or after 2005.

The union conceded the grievances were untimely but sought an extension of time limits.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the union failed to establish a prima facie case for extending the time limits, as the grievors knew of the circumstances giving rise to the complaints years before filing and provided no reasonable explanation for the multi-year delay.

The grievances were dismissed as untimely.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged for violating the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP).

The union grieved the discharge, arguing the penalty was excessive compared to other employees who committed similar violations but were only suspended.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor's violations were more significant, the essential nature of the violations was not so qualitatively different as to warrant discharge.

The Board declined to sustain the discharge and remitted the matter to the parties to agree on an appropriate suspension.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding whether periods of leave run concurrently with layoff notices under a collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that while notice periods can run concurrently with leave, doing so may be discriminatory under the Human Rights Code if the employee is unable to meaningfully consider their options while on leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and application of human rights principles was reasonable.

The union brought a motion requesting to rely on the grievor's completed evidence-in-chief in support of its interim relief application, rather than submitting a signed declaration of particulars as required by the Board's Interim Relief Rule.

The employer opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the requirements of the Interim Relief Rule.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by improperly reviewing employees' attendance for pattern absenteeism, holding disciplinary meetings, and requiring medical certificates for any absence over a thirty-day period.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer's methodology for determining attendance patterns was reasonable and that the attendance meetings and letters were non-disciplinary.

The Board also found no double jeopardy in reviewing absences previously addressed under the Attendance Support Program.

However, the Board concluded that the Employer violated Article 44.10 of the collective agreement by imposing a blanket requirement for an employee to submit a medical certificate for every absence over a thirty-day period, as discretion must be exercised at the time of each absence.

The Union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Employer violated a Memorandum of Understanding by continuing an investigation and disciplining the grievor for inappropriate use of information technology.

The Union argued that the exception in the Memorandum allowing investigations to continue required a formal complaint from an employee.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the language of the Memorandum was clear and unambiguous, and did not require a formal complaint to trigger the exception.

The employer requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for a union policy grievance, arguing that the union had not provided sufficient particulars.

The union opposed the request.

Following a conference call, the Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, rescheduling the first day of the hearing to determine if the union can make out a prima facie case.

In a grievance arbitration, the parties agreed on consent to the disclosure of the grievor's medical and long-term disability records, subject to conditions regarding review and copying by the employer's counsel.

The parties disputed the time frame for disclosure.

The employer sought records dating back to December 11, 1998, to establish a baseline of the grievor's health, while the union argued for December 11, 1999.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered disclosure from December 11, 1998, and further ordered that any medical documents marked as exhibits be sealed at the close of the proceedings.

This is the final decision in a series of mediation-arbitration proceedings addressing systemic remedies for a poisoned work environment at the Toronto Jail between 2005 and 2008.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the 48 Objectives Requiring Action agreed upon by the parties to address issues of racism, harassment, and workplace culture.

The Board concluded that, subject to an ongoing challenge regarding the investigation of hate letters, all agreed actions have been successfully carried out and implemented.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging unjust discipline after receiving a letter of reprimand.

Prior to the hearing, the employer rescinded the letter of reprimand, substituted a non-disciplinary letter of counsel, and moved to dismiss the grievance for mootness.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the issue of unjust discipline was moot because the letter of counsel was not disciplinary.

However, the Board found that the grievor's claim for damages for alleged loss of reputation and mental distress, which stemmed from the original discipline, remained a live controversy.

The employer's motion was granted in part.

The union filed a policy grievance on behalf of two groups of correctional officers, alleging the employer failed to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.

The workplace became poisoned due to anonymous racist and threatening hate mail, leading to severe racial divisions and a breakdown of trust among staff.

The employer admitted liability for negligence in its handling of the situation between 2005 and 2008.

The arbitrator found that while the employer did not write the letters, its response was inadequate and failed to sufficiently address the systemic issues until 2008.

The arbitrator awarded $1,500 to each affected employee in Group A and $1,000 to each affected employee in Group B for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision appointing Michael A. Davis to conduct a review of the Ministry's investigation into hate crimes, following consultation with the parties.

This decision follows previous rulings dealing with systemic remedies for discrimination and harassment at the Toronto Jail.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the progress of the employer and the union in implementing agreed-upon objectives, including staffing analyses, performance development plans, and human rights training.

The Board noted the withdrawal of several union proposals that were addressed by a new workplace discrimination and harassment policy, and issued further directions on the handling of future complaints.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled grievance hearing date because it had not yet completed a broad document production request from the Union and the parties had not finished exchanging particulars.

The Union opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, finding it made no sense to proceed without the requested documents and particulars.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the dismissal of a grievor for verbally abusing a client by telling them to 'shut up'.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's conclusion that this single instance constituted 'abuse' under the collective agreement, thereby mandating discharge, was unreasonable.

The court held that while the conduct was rude, it lacked the necessary characteristics of being demeaning, insulting, humiliating, or derogatory to constitute abuse.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The employer brought two preliminary motions to restrict the scope of evidence in grievances alleging workplace discrimination and harassment.

The first motion sought to exclude evidence from December 2000 to February 2001 for a 2003 grievance; the Vice-Chair found this motion premature.

The second motion sought to limit evidence for 2009 grievances to three years prior to filing.

The Vice-Chair held that evidence predating a 2001 settlement was inadmissible, but allowed evidence from December 11, 2000 onwards, departing from the usual three-year rule due to the grievor's lengthy absence on long-term disability and the overlapping nature of the complaints.

The union brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the employer in a pending application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The affidavit, sworn by the employer's counsel, alleged that the arbitrator's award misstated the employer's admissions and submissions regarding the purpose of a layoff notice provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavit fell within the narrow exception permitting extrinsic evidence on judicial review to show a complete absence of evidence for a factual finding or a breach of natural justice.

The court held that binding the employer to admissions or positions it did not take would produce a denial of natural justice.

The individual grievor sought to withdraw his grievance regarding a poisoned work environment and hate mail at the Toronto Jail, intending to pursue his claims before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The union and the employer opposed the withdrawal.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, holding that the union has exclusive carriage of the grievance and the individual has no standing to withdraw it.

Furthermore, the request was made at an advanced stage of a comprehensive systemic remediation process, making withdrawal inappropriate and an abuse of process.

The Union raised concerns about the thoroughness and pace of the Employer's investigation into hate crimes at the Toronto Jail, specifically regarding a letter discovered in April 2010 and another received in November 2010.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to disclose the identity of its handwriting expert by January 31, 2011, and to recommend a candidate to review the investigations by December 17, 2010.

The Union was given deadlines to respond to these appointments, with any unresolved issues to be addressed at a subsequent hearing.