Esther Young Sun Song

The Grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged for failing to notify the Employer that he had been criminally charged with failing to comply with a recognizance, and for failing to provide required information about his criminal charges in a timely manner.

The Grievor claimed he relied on the advice of his criminal counsel and that he thought he had provided sufficient information.

The Arbitrator found the Grievor's explanations disingenuous and unreliable, noting his repeated failure to comply with specific directions from the Employer to provide information.

The Arbitrator concluded the Employer established just cause for discharge and found no mitigating factors to warrant substituting a lesser penalty, dismissing the grievance.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against his union as premature.

The applicant had filed the complaint while his grievance arbitration was still ongoing, alleging delay and requesting independent counsel.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and upheld the OLRB's decision, finding that dismissing the complaint as premature before the completion of the grievance process was well within the range of acceptable outcomes and not an abuse of process.

The grievor, a Court Services Officer, alleged that his manager bullied, harassed, and discriminated against him on the basis of race, seeking $5 million in damages.

The union relied on four events: a dispute over uniform measurements, a weekend phone call checking on his well-being after a local shooting, the confiscation of a master key, and a disagreement over taking a lunch break.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of racial discrimination.

The arbitrator concluded that the manager's actions were carried out in good faith, were within the bounds of reasonable management conduct, and did not constitute vexatious conduct or an abuse of power.

In a grievance arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board, the employer requested an order directing the union to provide particulars for three grievances, including one the union sought to consolidate.

The arbitrator found the request warranted and ordered the union to file full particulars by a specified date.

The parties agreed to a procedural framework for hearing 11 related grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The arbitrator issued a consent order directing that the grievances be heard separately in chronological order, with evidence from the first grievance applying to subsequent ones, and set timelines for particulars and document production.

During a grievance arbitration concerning the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's restrictions, the employer sought an order for the disclosure of the grievor's complete medical file going back to 2012.

The employer argued that the grievor's family physician had reviewed the pre-2016 file when making recommendations during the relevant 2016-2018 period.

The arbitrator dismissed the request for broad disclosure, finding that the employer's ability to cross-examine the physician was not prejudiced in the absence of the complete file.

The union was directed to disclose only a 2012 x-ray that the physician had specifically relied upon.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached Minutes of Settlement dated January 13, 2021.

The Arbitrator issued an order directing the grievor to repay $8,341 for 2019 vacation credits by July 1, 2021, to avoid its inclusion on his 2021 T4.

The Employer was ordered to pay the grievor for his accumulated vacation credits for 2019, 2020, and 2021 between January 1 and March 31, 2022.

The parties agreed to consolidate several grievance files before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The arbitrator ordered the consolidation and directed the Union to provide particulars in respect of the consolidated matters by a specified date.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions following a case management session for a grievance relating to the termination of the grievor's employment.

The Arbitrator set deadlines for filing an Agreed Statement of Facts, declarations in lieu of examination-in-chief, and a joint Book of Documents.

Time limits were also established for opening statements, supplementary oral evidence, cross-examination, and final arguments.

The Union alleged the Employer breached a 1996 grievance settlement and the collective agreement by failing to restore the grievor's pension credits after she was reinstated.

The grievor had cashed out her pension contributions upon her initial termination in 1994 and sought approximately $280,000 to buy back the credits.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss for no prima facie case.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding the collective agreement did not apply and the 'make whole' provision of the settlement did not require the Employer to compensate the grievor for the current value of contributions she had already cashed out without loss.

The Union filed multiple grievances on behalf of an employee, including claims of failure to accommodate, harassment, and improper discipline.

The parties resolved several procedural issues on consent, including anonymization, disclosure of medical records, and workplace access for the grievor to retrieve documents.

The remaining dispute concerned whether all grievances should be consolidated and heard together.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievances be bifurcated, with the accommodation grievances heard first, as the grievor was off work and resolving the accommodation issues promptly was of primary labour relations importance.

The Applicant, MPAC, sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted three employees a portion of an enhanced severance payment.

The employees were originally temporary employees who later became non-temporary.

MPAC argued the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable and inconsistent with a prior award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the Letter of Understanding was reasonable and consistent with the express wording of the agreement.

The union filed a grievance alleging workplace harassment and discrimination on behalf of the grievor.

The employer brought a motion to strike two particulars from the grievance, arguing they related to events that occurred six and nine years prior to the grievance and involved a different manager.

The arbitrator applied the Grievance Settlement Board's three-year guideline for harassment and discrimination grievances, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from the rule.

The employer's motion was granted, and the union was precluded from calling evidence on the dated particulars.

The parties contacted the Grievance Settlement Board seeking an order for particulars in advance of the next scheduled hearing date.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the materials identified as the 'Appendixes to the Report' to the Union, with the condition that the disclosure only be used for purposes related to the proceeding.

The parties contacted the Grievance Settlement Board seeking an order for particulars ahead of an arbitration hearing scheduled to begin on April 23, 2019.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the 'Investigative Material' to the Union to allow preparation for the hearing, with the condition that the disclosure only be used for purposes related to the proceeding.

In the context of grievances alleging a failure to accommodate, a dispute arose regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical file.

The union opposed employer counsel sharing the redacted medical file with the instructing client and an employer witness without the grievor's consent.

The arbitrator held that requiring consent for each disclosure would be unworkable and cause delay.

Balancing the grievor's privacy rights with the employer's right to defend the grievances, the arbitrator ordered that employer counsel may share the medical information with the instructing client and witness strictly for the purposes of obtaining instructions and preparing for the hearing, subject to confidentiality conditions.

During a teleconference, the Employer requested a direction that the Union provide additional particulars regarding the grievance filed by Mr. Mohamed.

The Union did not object and was working on providing them.

The Arbitrator directed the Union to provide the additional particulars by May 10, 2019.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with a 17-year-old complainant in a motel room.

The complainant alleged that she was intoxicated by alcohol and marijuana and was sexually assaulted despite expressing non-consent.

The accused maintained that the sexual activity was entirely consensual.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the conflicting testimony.

While the court found the accused's evidence to be incredible and incapable of raising a reasonable doubt, it also found significant reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including memory gaps and inconsistencies.

Consequently, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The court ruled on the admissibility of videotaped police statements from the complainant (S.W.) under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought to admit these statements for the truth of their contents.

The complainant experienced significant distress when attempting to watch the videos during testimony and indicated she was hallucinating and not "all there" during the first interview.

The court found that the complainant had not adopted the statements under oath and that their admission would interfere with the proper administration of justice due to compromised reliability and the complainant's distress.

The application for substantive admission was dismissed.