Dean Ardron

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) decisions reinstating two Transit Safety Officers who were discharged for misconduct.

The GSB had found that the employer breached a sunset clause by considering expired disciplinary records when deciding to terminate the employees.

Relying on the Molson's case, the GSB concluded it was bound to void the discipline entirely and reinstate the employees with full compensation.

The Divisional Court granted the applications for judicial review, holding that the GSB erred by failing to consider all relevant circumstances before applying Molson's and by failing to consider its statutory discretion to substitute a penalty under s. 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act.

The decisions were quashed and remitted to the GSB.

During a grievance arbitration, the union sought to introduce evidence of two prior incidents involving a witness to demonstrate workplace culture.

The employer objected, arguing the evidence was improper propensity evidence.

The arbitrator ruled that the evidence could not be admitted to show propensity.

However, because the employer had put workplace culture in issue, evidence of one incident was admitted as relevant to that issue.

Evidence of the second incident was excluded as irrelevant to the characterization of the work environment.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of a grievance contesting the dismissal of a probationary employee.

The grievor was discharged after being charged with manslaughter following an altercation.

The collective agreement provided that probationary employees could be dismissed at the 'absolute and sole discretion' of the employer and that such dismissal 'shall be deemed to be for just cause.' The union argued there was an implied obligation that the employer's decision not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The arbitrator held that the explicit language of the collective agreement overrode any implied obligation, precluding the board from reviewing the dismissal.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of the grievor's employment, the union sought production of cell phone records from a third-party telecommunications provider.

The arbitrator ordered Fido to produce a full account of incoming and outgoing calls between two specified phone numbers for a defined period.

The records were ordered to be released to employer counsel, who would then provide them to union counsel without redaction, subject to privacy protections for personal information.

The applicants' motion for leave to appeal an order denying an interlocutory injunction was previously dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the applicants unnecessarily ran up costs by pursuing the motion despite being warned the appeal route was to the Court of Appeal.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the jurisdictional issue was not straightforward.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis, reflecting the complexity of the jurisdictional issue and the need for the respondent to address the merits of the leave motion.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an order denying their application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from implementing random drug and alcohol testing pending a grievance arbitration.

The respondent argued the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because the order was final, not interlocutory.

The court agreed, finding that because the injunction was sought by way of an application, the dismissal of that application finally determined the proceeding.

Consequently, the order was final and any appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment.

During the arbitration proceedings, the union sought the production of incoming call detail records from Bell Mobility for a specific telephone number.

On consent of both parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered Bell Mobility to disclose and release the requested records to the union's counsel.

The Union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Employer improperly relied on stale-dated 'adverse notations' when terminating the grievor, a Transit Safety Officer, contrary to the collective agreement's sunset clause.

The Employer argued it only considered the culminating incident and a recent mentoring session.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the termination letter and the deciding manager's testimony demonstrated reliance on prior complaints of excessive force that were over 24 months old.

Following prior jurisprudence, the Board held that relying on such stale-dated information violated the sunset clause.

The preliminary motion was granted, the discharge was set aside, and the grievor was reinstated with full compensation.

The Union brought a motion under Rule 3 of the Grievance Settlement Board's Rules of Procedure to have three grievances heard together by the same Vice-Chair.

The grievances all pertained to the I&IT Support Services department and involved the same supervisor.

The Employer opposed the motion.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion, finding that the grievances shared common questions of law or fact, and that hearing them together would create efficiencies, avoid inconsistent findings, and not prejudice the Employer.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Toronto Transit Commission from implementing random drug and alcohol testing for safety-sensitive employees pending the outcome of a policy grievance arbitration.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any privacy breaches or wrongful dismissals could be compensated with damages.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the significant public interest in transit safety and evidence of a workplace drug and alcohol problem.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

In a policy grievance asserting bargaining rights over PRESTO and UP Express, the union sought production of documents showing when bargaining unit members performed work for other lines of business.

The employer objected, arguing the request was overbroad and a fishing expedition.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union's broad request for all instances of crossover work was overbroad.

However, the Board ordered production of documents relating specifically to the work the union had particularized at UP Express and PRESTO, finding this narrower request to be a proportionate and specific inquiry relevant to the union's theory of the case.

The Employer requested documents pertaining to the grievor's criminal charges and trial, while the Union requested a list of documents over which the Employer claimed privilege.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the Employer's document request be deferred until a decision is made on its preliminary motion to dismiss based on the grievor's probationary status.

The Employer was ordered to provide a list of documents preceding the termination date over which it claimed privilege, including the date, author, recipients, general subject matter, and privilege claimed.

The Union applied for interim relief seeking an order that the Employer accommodate the grievor in a non-driving position pending the outcome of his grievance.

The grievor, a coach technician, had his driver's license suspended following an impaired driving charge, but asserted he suffered from alcoholism requiring accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the application, finding that granting the requested interim relief would effectively dispose of the main accommodation issue in the grievance without a full hearing on the merits, which exceeds the arbitrator's procedural powers under the Labour Relations Act.

The Union grieved the termination of a Transit Safety Officer and brought a preliminary motion arguing the dismissal was void ab initio because the Employer relied on expired discipline.

The collective agreement contained a sunset clause requiring the removal of disciplinary records and letters of counsel after specified periods.

The decision-maker admitted to considering past customer complaints and an expired letter of counsel when deciding to terminate the Grievor for a use of force incident.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the sunset clause was a mandatory substantive right and that the Employer's reliance on stale records violated the collective agreement.

The discharge was declared void ab initio, and the Grievor was reinstated with full compensation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding overtime opportunities.

After a lengthy procedural history involving the applicant's failure to provide particulars and disregard for Tribunal orders, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled merits hearing, sending a fax the morning of the hearing claiming bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and as an abuse of process, noting the applicant's failure to request time off work indicated he never intended to attend.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add details regarding an alleged breach of the collective agreement and to increase the monetary compensation claimed.

The respondent consented to the request and the intervenor took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the applicant was not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination or new parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (PTSD) by his employer, the WSIB, and his union.

The employer had terminated the applicant for unsubstantiated absences, which was the subject of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the arbitration hearing, finding a significant overlap in the factual and legal issues and a risk of inconsistent decisions if the proceedings ran concurrently.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to call into a scheduled teleconference hearing.

The applicant, a paralegal, claimed he misread the Notice of Hearing and expected to be called.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant should have read the Notice carefully, his emails sent the night before and shortly after the hearing demonstrated an intention to pursue the application.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration, finding that the prejudice to the respondents was minimal.

The plaintiff employer brought an action seeking disgorgement of board allowance payments allegedly mistakenly paid to the defendant, a former employee, under a collective agreement.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose under the collective agreement and that an arbitrator had the power to award damages against a former employee.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A teleconference hearing was scheduled to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

Despite receiving proper notice and communicating with the Tribunal shortly before the hearing, the applicant failed to attend the teleconference.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.