Gavin Leeb

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision finding that the employer and union violated the Pay Equity Act by agreeing to reduce the wages of a female-dominated job class.

The employer argued the reduction was a temporary measure to avoid contracting out work and was justified under exceptions in the Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Act prohibits reducing wages of employees who have achieved pay equity, and that the Tribunal reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the union to contribute to the wage adjustments.

The moving party school board brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court to dismiss the responding party union's application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought review of arbitration awards concerning a wrongful dismissal grievance.

The single judge held that unless the determination of a motion to dismiss for delay is so clear as to leave no doubt, it should be decided by the full panel hearing the application.

Finding the issues were not clear enough for a single judge to determine, the court adjourned the motion to the full panel.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was terminated for allegedly covering up an excessive use of force incident by a correctional officer and failing in his managerial duties.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant failed to properly manage the situation and ensure the use of force was clearly reported, the evidence did not establish that he actively participated in a cover-up or switched occurrence reports.

Applying the McKinley contextual framework, the Board concluded that discharge was an excessive penalty given the complainant's 16 years of discipline-free service and the potential for rehabilitation.

The complainant was reinstated to his position, with the period since his discharge treated as an unpaid suspension.

The Minister of Education brought a Stated Case asking the Divisional Court to determine whether the Education Act permits school boards to pay for life insurance and health benefits for retired employees over 65 years of age.

The Minister argued that the Act only permits payments to current employees and that specific statutory authority is required for such expenditures.

The Court held that while ss. 177(3) and 177(4) do not authorize these payments, other sections of the Act, including ss. 58.5(1), 170(1)18, 171(1)3, and 177(1), when read together and in context, provide the necessary authority.

The Court found that school boards have the power to negotiate and pay for post-retirement benefits as part of employee compensation packages.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance based on the same facts and issues had been filed on the applicant's behalf and referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondents requested an order to dismiss four of the five allegations for delay, arguing they were filed outside the one-year limitation period and did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegation.

The Tribunal found that the earlier allegations related to separate and independent incidents, including harassment prior to the injury and failure to accommodate during a previous contract, which were not connected to the timely allegation regarding a refusal to sign a certification form.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the earlier allegations.

The Tribunal declined to hold a summary hearing for the remaining allegation, directing it to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager at a detention centre, was discharged for cause following an investigation into numerous performance deficiencies, including medication errors, failure to secure methadone, and administrative backlog.

She argued the discharge was excessive due to a toxic work environment, understaffing, and lack of progressive discipline.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that while the employer shared some responsibility for the difficult working conditions, the complainant's serious and repeated failures in judgment, particularly regarding medication control and documentation, irreparably damaged the bond of trust necessary for her managerial role in a correctional setting.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) arbitration had already dealt with the substance of the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the GSB arbitrator had addressed the core human rights issues, including the failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination, and had awarded reinstatement and lost wages.

Concluding that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in the other proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was dismissed for cause following three incidents, including failing to report a subordinate's excessive use of force and personally using excessive force by kicking a meal hatch on an inmate's arm.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant's serious lapses in judgment justified discipline and irreparably damaged the employment relationship, dismissal without any compensation was too severe given his long, exemplary service and the difficult job market.

Because the complainant had applied force to a vulnerable person, the Board was statutorily barred from reinstating him to his former position.

The Board awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to 24 months' wages and benefits.

The applicant, a former employee, sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision that dismissed her application under the Pay Equity Act for failing to establish a prima facie case.

She argued the Tribunal made findings of fact without evidence and denied her procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable, noting the applicant failed to plead material facts challenging the pay equity plan and had ample notice that her application could be dismissed early.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability, relating to workplace discipline and suspension.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, and the respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance regarding the same events.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, noting that both parties agreed to the deferral.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that Human Resources Secretaries were not excluded from the bargaining unit under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court held that the Board reasonably interpreted the provision as requiring the confidential capacity to relate to the specific bargaining unit in which the employee would be a member, to avoid a conflict of loyalty.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the effective date for retroactive salary adjustments for employees newly included in the bargaining unit.

The arbitrator had ruled that compensation would run from the date an employee was found or agreed to come within the unit, rather than the date of the initial grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's remedial decision was reasonable given the complex, multi-year dispute involving multiple unions and hundreds of disputed positions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The parties subsequently signed a settlement agreement resolving the applicant's grievance and human rights application.

The applicant later sought to proceed with her application, alleging she signed the settlement under duress from her union, family, and the employer.

The employer filed a contravention of settlement application, seeking damages for the applicant's failure to withdraw her application and for disclosing the settlement terms.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress and dismissed the human rights application as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also dismissed the employer's contravention application, finding that while a technical breach may have occurred, no further order or damages were appropriate.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached his employment contract by treating him unfairly and arbitrarily in its handling of a subordinate's harassment complaints and grievances against him.

The employer settled the subordinate's grievances by reassigning the complainant without providing him timely notice of the allegations or an opportunity to respond.

The complainant subsequently left the workplace due to the resulting poisoned work environment and stress.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the employer breached its duty of fairness and acted arbitrarily.

The Board awarded the complainant compensation for lost overtime and pay-for-performance, as well as $5,000 in damages for mental distress resulting from the breach of procedural fairness provisions in his employment contract.

The complainant, who was off on sick leave, disputed whether the employer's proposed return-to-work plan met her medical restrictions.

She requested that the employer facilitate and pay for a review of the plan by the physician who had previously conducted an Independent Medical Examination.

The employer argued that the duty to accommodate did not require it to initiate and pay for medical approval of a plan it considered appropriate.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the employer's duty to accommodate is ongoing and includes taking reasonable steps to ensure a return-to-work plan meets the employee's restrictions, especially when genuine concerns are raised.

The Board directed the employer to facilitate the requested review or take other measures to ensure the assignment met the restrictions.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the City of Thunder Bay, two personal respondents, and his union.

During a telephone conference, the applicant consented to removing the personal respondents.

The Tribunal noted that the application against the City appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether it caused substantial prejudice under section 34(2), deferring other procedural issues until the timeliness question is resolved.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after resigning from his employment and signing a full and final release.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic duress because the employer threatened to terminate him for working another job while collecting sick leave benefits.

The Tribunal found no duress, as the employer's threat of termination for fraudulent behaviour was not illegitimate pressure.

The Tribunal also found the allegations against the union related to inadequate representation, not discrimination.

The application was dismissed against all respondents.

The grievor, a black unclassified Administrative Support Clerk, alleged that the employer discriminated against him on the basis of race or colour when he was unsuccessful in job competitions for permanent and temporary positions, and when his temporary employment contract was not renewed.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the evidence regarding the grievor's hiring, his treatment during employment, the conduct of the job competitions, and the reasons for non-renewal.

The Board found that the employer's actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, such as the grievor's performance in the job competition and the collective agreement rules regarding contract renewals.

The grievances were dismissed.

Three correctional officers (escort officers) were disciplined following the escape of an inmate from a transport bus.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing it was void due to double jeopardy (as they were initially suspended with pay pending investigation) and delay.

The arbitrator found the discipline was not void, as the initial suspension was not a final determination and the delay was not unreasonable.

On the merits of the penalties, the arbitrator upheld a 20-day suspension for the driver, reduced a 20-day suspension to 10 days for an officer who had not been properly trained on the specific rule violated, and substituted a 3-month suspension for the discharge of the senior officer, noting his lengthy discipline-free record and eventual acceptance of responsibility.