Heather McIvor

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Union must advise within three weeks if it intends to proceed with the next scheduled hearing date and provide reasons for the grievor's non-attendance.

If the Union fails to do so, the grievance will be deemed dismissed.

The union requested an order directing the employer to fully implement the terms of a Memorandum of Settlement that resolved a 2012 grievance.

Following a conference call, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to fully implement the settlement terms within 30 days, including correcting the grievor's vacation and STSP credits in the WIN system.

The Union filed grievances alleging harassment and claiming the grievor's resignation was not voluntary.

The Employer sought to have the issue of just cause for termination heard in the alternative, proposing a two-stage hearing process.

The Union opposed hearing the just cause issue and sought production of certain documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the just cause issue would be heard in the alternative if the resignation was found to be involuntary, adopting the Employer's proposed two-stage procedure.

The Board also ordered the production of requested staff schedules and overtime records, but limited the timeframe to the period when the relevant manager was employed.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment, which the employer declared abandoned under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The grievor had been off work due to illness and subsequently requested an unpaid leave of absence to care for his sick father.

The employer repeatedly requested supporting documentation, including medical information, which the grievor failed to provide.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's requests for information were reasonable and that the grievor failed to comply.

The grievance was denied, and the declaration of abandonment was upheld.

The union grieved comments included in the grievor's Performance Development and Learning Plan, alleging they breached Article 3.2 of the collective agreement, which prohibits discrimination or harassment based on union activity.

Although the employer subsequently removed the comments, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a declaration that the inclusion of the comments breached Article 3.2.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer discriminated against the grievor on the basis of gender, race, ancestry, and colour, resulting in the denial of employment opportunities and preventing her from meeting the criteria for conversion to a regular service position.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the union's particulars did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion, finding that even if the particulars were accepted as true, they failed to demonstrate that the grievor's protected characteristics were a factor in any adverse treatment she experienced.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant Ministry sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision reinstating a Transportation Enforcement Officer who was terminated after pleading guilty to off-duty indecent acts.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and upheld the termination, finding that the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Board misapprehended medical evidence regarding the employee's long-term risk of reoffending and unreasonably diminished the significance of the Millhaven criteria for off-duty conduct, particularly the negative impact on the employee's credibility as a peace officer required to testify in court.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing regarding his termination for abandoning his position.

The union requested an adjournment sine die, citing suspected substance abuse issues, or alternatively a brief adjournment to locate the grievor.

The employer opposed an indefinite adjournment and sought dismissal if strict conditions were not met.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment sine die but granted a three-week adjournment to allow the union to provide medical documentation of a disability and a written undertaking from the grievor to participate in future proceedings.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled mediation and a subsequent arbitration hearing regarding a grievance alleging harassment and discrimination.

The Union requested an adjournment, citing the grievor's medical reasons, but failed to provide a required medical note by the deadline set by the Board.

The Employer sought dismissal of the grievance due to the delay and lack of diligence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the proceedings and failed to justify his absences.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled arbitration hearing, having previously failed to attend a mediation session.

The Union requested an adjournment, while the Employer sought dismissal of the grievance due to prejudice from delay.

The Vice-Chair held that the grievor had an onus to be attentive to the scheduling of his grievance.

The grievance was ordered to be administratively dismissed unless the Union could provide a good reason for the grievor's failure to attend by a specified date.

The defendant Ministry moved under rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim for failure to provide the Crown with 60 days’ notice under s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The plaintiff had previously filed a judicial review application and affidavit outlining allegations against the Ministry and later indicated verbally that a civil action would follow.

The court held that the documentation provided sufficient particulars identifying the source of the complaint and communicated a dispute that could reasonably be anticipated to result in litigation.

Contextual verbal communication between counsel could be considered to provide context to the written materials.

The court concluded that the notice requirement had been satisfied and dismissed the motion.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to add a police officer and the Hamilton Police Services as respondents, to compel the lifting of a trespass notice preventing his access to a courthouse, and to order the production of original notes and policy documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests in their entirety, finding them decidedly untimely as they were made less than a month before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had long known of the police involvement and that he would have the opportunity to cross-examine the officer at the hearing.

The applicant requested a second extension of time to file his witness list, witness statements, and documents for an upcoming hearing, citing difficulties in obtaining assistance from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing prejudice due to the proximity of the hearing date.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting that while the applicant had delayed, the respondent had also failed to meet its own disclosure requirements.

Both parties were ordered to file their materials by the new deadline.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, specifically that the London ServiceOntario office lacked an automatic door opener.

The Ministry requested dismissal as a preliminary matter, arguing the office was run by an independent contractor.

The Tribunal denied the Ministry's request, finding the issue of liability should be determined at a full hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the London ServiceOntario Office as a respondent, applying the test from Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board.

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

The respondent Attorney General requested an order removing five personal respondents from the application.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted potential liability, could respond to and remedy the complaints, and that there was no compelling reason to continue proceedings against the individuals.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board, arguing that the Union's grievance was not referred to arbitration in a timely manner.

The Union argued that the Employer waived its objection by participating in the Joint File Review process and exchanging correspondence without raising the timeliness issue.

The Vice-Chair held that while the time limit for referral to arbitration is a procedural matter that can be waived, the Employer did not waive its objection in this case.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant in a human rights reprisal complaint filed a Request for Order seeking to add two individuals as respondents and requesting disclosure of certain documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the respondents, finding no allegations that could support a finding they violated the Code and noting that adding them would unnecessarily delay and complicate the proceedings.

The Tribunal also denied the disclosure request, finding the requested credentials were not arguably relevant and the requested correspondence was either not shown to exist or subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Union's grievance was not referred to arbitration in a timely manner.

The Union argued that the failure to refer the grievance within the time limit was a procedural defect that the Employer waived by agreeing to a hearing date and not raising the objection until shortly before the hearing.

The Vice-Chair held that the time limit for referral to arbitration is a procedural matter, not a substantive one, and can be waived.

The Vice-Chair concluded that the Employer waived its objection by taking a 'fresh step' in scheduling the hearing without raising the timeliness issue.

The Employer's preliminary motion was dismissed.

The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being issued a trespass notice prohibiting him from entering a Hamilton courthouse.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the discrimination claims, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link the trespass notice to his race, ethnic origin, creed, or sexual orientation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the reprisal claim to proceed, finding that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the respondents and the issuance of the trespass notice as retaliation for his previous human rights grievances.

The Employer requested that the grievance hearing be held in Kingston, where the grievor, the Employer's witnesses, and the Employer's advisor reside and work.

The Union opposed the request, arguing that its hearings have historically been held in Toronto and that its representative and counsel reside there.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the balance of convenience favoured holding the hearing in Kingston, as a Toronto hearing would cause considerably more inconvenience and cost to the Employer than a Kingston hearing would cause the Union.