Robert Houston

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for using excessive force on an inmate during an escort and for failing to wear a Ministry-approved face mask.

The arbitrator found that the employer had condoned the mask violation, but upheld the termination based on the use of force.

The arbitrator concluded that the grievor used an unnecessary and dangerous takedown technique contrary to his training, and unnecessarily struck the inmate in the face with a closed fist.

Given the grievor's prior disciplinary record for excessive use of force and lack of insight, the grievance was dismissed.

The Grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged after an altercation with an inmate in a maximum-security unit.

The Employer alleged the Grievor used excessive force, including prohibited closed-fist strikes, and engaged in unprofessional behaviour by intentionally intimidating the inmate.

The arbitrator found the Grievor's evidence lacked credibility and preferred the testimony of other correctional officers and video evidence.

The arbitrator concluded the Grievor instigated the physical altercation by invading the inmate's personal space, threatened the inmate, and used excessive force by punching the inmate while he was restrained by other officers.

Finding no significant mitigating factors and noting the Grievor's failure to take responsibility for the most serious misconduct, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance and upheld the discharge.

During a discharge grievance hearing for a correctional officer terminated for alleged excessive use of force against an inmate, the Employer sought to call an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on the officer's actions.

The Union objected, arguing the arbitrator was capable of assessing the evidence without expert assistance.

Applying the Mohan/White Burgess framework, the arbitrator qualified the witness as an expert in use of force and defensive tactics.

The expert was permitted to testify on whether the officer's actions complied with Ministry policy, but was restricted from providing an opinion on the ultimate issue of whether the force used was excessive, which remained a factual determination for the arbitrator.