Jennifer Richards

This case involves two motions within the context of a father's motion to change a final parenting order.

The applicant father sought to confirm interim parenting arrangements for the two children, while the respondent mother moved to strike the father's affidavit containing a surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation with the maternal grandmother.

The court granted the mother's motion to strike the recorded evidence, citing public policy against surreptitious recordings in family law, the involvement of a third party, and the hearsay nature of the evidence.

The court also granted the father's motion, confirming the de facto parenting schedule of alternate weekends with the mother (supervised) and the remaining time with the father, finding a material change in circumstances and that this arrangement served the children's best interests, particularly for the younger child requiring stability.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The Employer requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 6, 2018, due to the unexpected illness of its counsel.

The Employer was unable to find a replacement.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, noting the absence of counsel and the lack of other productive activities that could be accomplished on that date.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached several terms of their Minutes of Settlement.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to amend his application to allege he lacked the capacity to sign the agreement.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it was out of time, would cause prejudice, and lacked evidentiary support.

The Tribunal then reviewed the alleged breaches, including claims regarding the removal of documents, tax rebate paperwork, job competition restrictions, and reference letters.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent breached any terms of the settlement and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after not being interviewed for two positions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement containing a full and final release regarding the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal found that the release barred any claims related to the applicant's employment up to his resignation date, which included the job competitions in question.

The applicant failed to establish duress in signing the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an order for the production of documents relating to a workplace investigation and assessments of racism and discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to determining whether the specific terms of the settlement—which involved protecting the applicant's reputation, amending a T4, and releasing personal documents—had been breached.

The complainant, a retired public servant, filed a complaint claiming entitlement to a lump sum pay-for-performance payment for the 2014 fiscal year.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant was no longer a public servant at the time of filing and had not been employed continuously for six months prior to the notice deadline.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that under the Public Service of Ontario Act and O. Reg. 378/07, only current public servants can file grievances regarding terms and conditions of employment.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release, but did not file a copy of the settlement.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the settlement should be disclosed.

With the agreement of all parties and the intervenor, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the settlement agreement for the sole purpose of determining the respondent's dismissal request.

The Tribunal also granted the intervenor's unopposed request to intervene.

The employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its counsel was taking a new position and the file needed to be transferred to new counsel.

The union opposed the adjournment, citing concerns about delay.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, finding that requiring the employer to begin calling evidence with one counsel and continue with another would place the new counsel at a disadvantage and compromise fair procedure.

The union filed several grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging violations of the Human Rights Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act regarding her workplace accommodation for mental health disabilities.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a decision resolving all grievances, ordering a period of sick leave for medical adjustment, followed by a structured return to work with specific accommodations including a three-day work week, regular feedback, and external facilitation.

The employer was also ordered to pay $2,000 in general damages to assist in the grievor's recovery.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order dismissing their Rule 21 motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction over a wrongful dismissal claim brought by a probationary police officer.

The court considered the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires either a conflicting decision or a reason to doubt the correctness of the order combined with issues of sufficient importance.

The court found a conflicting decision concerning whether disputes involving probationary police officers fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators or police disciplinary regimes.

Given the potential conflict and broader importance for labour law and police discipline frameworks, leave to appeal was granted.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard two procedural issues regarding the termination of five employees at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Vice-Chair confirmed oral rulings consolidating two related grievances involving lesser discipline with the termination grievances.

The Vice-Chair also ordered that document disclosure be subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use to the litigation and requiring the return of documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The applicant filed two applications: one alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment and hiring by the provincial government, and another alleging breach of a prior settlement agreement's confidentiality clause.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed both applications.

The breach of settlement claim was dismissed because internal disclosure of the agreement to rely on its release clause did not violate confidentiality.

The discrimination claims arising before the settlement date were dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code as they were barred by the broad release in the prior settlement.

The remaining claims regarding subsequent job applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided only bald assertions without evidence linking the failure to obtain jobs to prohibited grounds or reprisal.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, following his termination for insubordination related to a return to work plan.

The applicant's union had previously grieved the termination before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB), which dismissed the grievances and upheld the termination.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the GSB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications, both explicitly by finding no failure to accommodate, and implicitly by finding the return to work plan reasonable.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and sex, primarily relating to pay discrepancies and over-deductions between 2002 and 2007.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing in writing to determine preliminary issues of delay and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations prior to June 2008 were out of time and that the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay.

For the timely allegations from June 2008 onwards, the Tribunal dismissed them for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged pay issues to any Code-protected grounds.

The grievor, a Ministry of Labour Inspector, was terminated for abusing his authority.

While assisting his sister (a landlord) in a dispute with her tenant, the grievor attempted to gain entry to the tenant's apartment.

Video evidence contradicted the grievor's testimony and confirmed that he flashed his Ministry badge, claimed to have a warrant, and falsely asserted authority to enter the premises.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's actions constituted a serious abuse of trust justifying his dismissal, and dismissed the grievance.

The complainants, four Operational Managers, requested further direction regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision that declared the reduction of their rank title to Sergeant to be of no force and effect.

The complainants alleged the employer was not complying with the Board's directions regarding their participation in the consultation process.

The Board found that the employer's actions, including providing timelines for written submissions and an opportunity to present to the Operational Managers' Standing Committee, complied with its previous orders.

The Board reiterated that reducing the rank to Sergeant again would not be a valid alternative consistent with the complainants' terms and conditions of employment.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by imposing unjust discipline and engaging in workplace harassment during a staff meeting.

The meeting addressed employee misconduct, including sleeping on night shifts and abusing meal breaks.

The employer reminded nursing staff of their professional obligations to the College of Nurses of Ontario after some employees resisted the employer's directives.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's comments were a reasonable and restrained response to inappropriate employee behaviour and did not constitute discipline, harassment, or intimidation.

The employer requested an extension of time to implement a previous Board decision that declared a unilateral change to the complainants' rank titles and uniforms to be of no force and effect.

The employer sought additional time to engage in systematic consultation with Operational Managers across the province.

The complainants consented to the consultation but opposed delaying the return to their previous rank and uniform.

The Board granted the extension to May 31, 2014, to allow for a considered, provincial resolution, and ordered that the complainants be permitted a formal role in the consultation process.

The applicant, an Aboriginal public servant, filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination regarding the appointment of a non-Aboriginal person to a Director position without a job posting.

The application was filed more than two and a half years after the initial appointment and over a year after the applicant suspected discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's delay was not incurred in good faith, as waiting to gather evidence or pursuing other internal avenues does not justify a delay.

The application was dismissed.

The union requested an adjournment of several continuation dates because the grievor had moved out of the province and had difficulty obtaining time off from his new job.

The employer did not object to the adjournment, provided its liability for the delay was limited.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment and ordered that the employer would not be responsible for any compensation accruing to the grievor during the period of delay.