Glenn Peter Christie

The applicant, a Black municipal councillor, alleged he was subjected to racial profiling by a police officer.

After a Police Services Act (PSA) disciplinary hearing cleared the officer of misconduct, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed the applicant's human rights complaint under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the matter had been appropriately dealt with.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply or justify its departure from established Supreme Court of Canada and HRTO jurisprudence, which holds that it is generally unfair to use a PSA proceeding to bar a human rights complaint due to differences in purpose, standard of proof, and available remedies.

The HRTO decisions were set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The union filed a policy grievance arguing that seven newly created positions should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board found it was functus officio regarding the union's argument on the scope of the recognition clause, as that issue had been previously decided.

On the alternative argument that the positions performed bargaining unit work, the Board examined the Customer Care Coordinator (CCC) and Project Officer (PO) positions.

The Board dismissed the grievance regarding the CCC position, finding its core functions differed significantly from the Station Attendant position.

However, the Board upheld the grievance regarding the PO position, finding its duties were substantially similar to the bargaining unit Project Coordinator position, thereby drawing it into the bargaining unit.

The union requested that the Grievance Settlement Board order the employer to recall two witnesses who had already completed their testimony.

The union argued that the witnesses had given contradictory testimony in a separate proceeding before a different arbitrator regarding their use of an internal document to determine whether positions were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The employer opposed the request, arguing that the document related only to statutory exclusions for confidential duties, which was not the basis of the union's claim.

The Arbitrator dismissed the union's request, finding that the witnesses' prior testimony was not strictly contradictory and that recalling them for cross-examination on the document would not serve a useful purpose, as the union's claim relied on similarity to existing bargaining unit positions rather than statutory exclusions.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal against a newspaper, a hospital, and a press council.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success was reasonable.

The Court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and systemic oppression against self-represented litigants.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

In a bifurcated human rights proceeding where liability for discrimination was previously established, the applicant sought to amend the personal and public interest remedies claimed.

The respondent opposed the amendments, arguing they constituted new allegations and were out of time.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the amendments related to the impact of the established discrimination and did not unduly prejudice the respondent.

A request by a community organization to intervene on the issue of public interest remedies was refused, as the Tribunal found the organization's submissions could be adequately addressed through the applicant.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss parts of the human rights application due to delay and to remove the personal respondent.

The applicant alleged a series of discriminatory incidents and failure to accommodate his disability over several years.

The Tribunal held that determining whether the incidents constituted a series under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code required hearing evidence, and deferred the delay issue to the hearing adjudicator.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondent, finding it premature prior to the disclosure of documents and witness statements.

The respondents' requests were denied.

The employer requested to bifurcate the proceeding to hear a preliminary legal argument regarding the scope of the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board had previously denied a similar request.

The employer argued that changed circumstances, specifically particulars provided by the union and the filing of two new policy grievances, warranted reconsideration.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bifurcate, citing policy concerns about halting proceedings midstream for reconsideration based on changed circumstances, and finding that the criteria for bifurcation were not substantially met as a favorable decision for the employer would not dispose of the entire grievance.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of an arbitration award between CUPE Local 27 and the Greater Essex County District School Board, arguing the arbitrator erred in interpreting s. 177 of the Education Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for the reasons given in a related Stated Case (2016 ONSC 2361), finding the result was the same regardless of whether the standard of review was correctness or reasonableness.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to CUPE Local 27.

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.

A long‑serving dealership manager brought a wrongful dismissal action after his employer terminated him for alleged alcohol use at work and for allegedly driving company vehicles while impaired.

The employer relied on complaints from staff and a purported zero‑tolerance policy on alcohol consumption during work hours.

The court found the allegations vague, unsubstantiated, and largely unsupported by the evidence, and determined that the alleged policy had never been clearly communicated or incorporated into the employment contract.

Applying the contextual approach to just cause from McKinley and proportionality principles from Dowling, the court held that the conduct did not justify summary dismissal and that progressive discipline would have been appropriate.

The plaintiff was awarded damages based on five months’ reasonable notice.

The applicant, a police officer alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in a promotion process, brought a preliminary motion for the production of documents and particulars.

The applicant sought extensive statistical and personnel records based on assertions made by the respondent in its Response.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing bifurcated between liability and remedy on consent.

The Tribunal granted the production of certain documents, including the resume of a comparator officer, policies on the promotion of racialized officers, and redacted endorsements of other candidates.

However, the Tribunal denied most of the requests for broad statistical data and personnel files of other officers, finding them not arguably relevant to the core issues of the specific promotion decision and alleged reprisals at this early stage of the proceeding.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to bifurcate the proceeding, arguing that the Board should first determine its motion that the Board was functus officio regarding the scope of the bargaining unit before hearing the merits of the grievance relating to the inclusion/exclusion of seven specific positions.

The union opposed bifurcation.

The Board reviewed the arbitral jurisprudence on bifurcation and concluded that while the preliminary issue was separate and distinct from the merits, bifurcating the proceeding would not result in any saving of time or resources, nor would it dispose of the entire grievance.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bifurcate the proceeding and directed that all issues be heard together.

The proposed interveners, two unions, brought motions for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review concerning the payment of post-retirement benefits by a school board.

The judicial review was scheduled to be heard immediately after a related Stated Case in which both proposed interveners were already participating.

The court dismissed one union's motion to intervene, finding it could efficiently make its arguments in the Stated Case proceeding without prolonging the judicial review.

However, the court added the other union as a responding party because it was a joint signatory to the collective agreement at issue in the underlying arbitration.

The applicant failed to file hearing documents as directed by a Case Assessment Direction, had no contact with the Tribunal following a case management conference, and failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

After waiting thirty minutes for the applicant to appear, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove a personal respondent and to strike background allegations from the human rights application.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent on consent.

The Tribunal declined to strike the background allegations regarding the cause of the applicant's disability, finding they were not alleged Code infringements subject to dismissal for delay under s. 34(1), and held that their relevance and admissibility should be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

The respondent requested that one of its witnesses be permitted to testify by telephone due to an ongoing medical condition.

The applicant opposed the request and sought an adjournment to obtain more complete medical information.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request and denied the adjournment, finding that the witness's credibility was not a key issue, her proposed evidence was not extensive, and allowing her to testify electronically would not cause substantial prejudice to the applicant.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed the scope of evidence admissible in a hearing regarding allegations of racial discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal ruled that the applicant's proposed evidence concerning general work environment allegations was inadmissible, as those allegations had not been permitted to proceed following a prior summary hearing.

The hearing was restricted to the specific 'slave for a day' comment and a subsequent email, along with relevant contextual evidence regarding human rights policies and training.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination in a police promotion process requested an order striking out certain historical allegations and removing the Chief of Police as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal declined to strike the historical allegations, finding they were offered as contextual evidence rather than standalone claims, but ordered the applicant to provide further particulars.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the Chief of Police, finding no compelling reason to continue the application against her personally as the organizational respondent was vicariously liable and capable of responding to any remedial order.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer failed to recognize certain positions as falling within the bargaining unit.

The parties asked the Board to interpret the recognition clause.

The Board held that the recognition clause did not create an 'all employee' bargaining unit, but was limited to the classifications specified in the schedules or developed under article 9.

However, the Board found that the general exclusion of 'office and technical staff' was inserted by mistake during drafting and did not reflect the parties' agreement.

The Board applied the doctrine of rectification to remove the general exclusion of office and technical staff from the collective agreement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer to determine whether the human rights application should be deferred pending the resolution of a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant, respondents, and affected party all filed submissions opposing deferral.

The Tribunal agreed with the parties, declined to defer the application, and directed that it be processed in the normal course.