John O'Reilly

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled videoconference hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Union made repeated unsuccessful efforts to contact the grievor.

The Arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide detailed reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed without further notice.

The union requested a further extension of time to file medical information explaining the grievor's failure to attend a scheduled hearing.

The employer opposed the extension.

The arbitrator granted the extension, finding that the potential harm to the grievor of a precipitous deemed dismissal outweighed the negative impact of delay on the employer, as the extension was without prejudice to the employer's position.

The time to file supporting documentation was extended to March 30, 2026.

The union sought to explain the grievor's failure to attend a scheduled hearing, stating she had been hospitalized.

The employer objected to accepting this assertion without supporting medical documentation.

The union requested that the matter be relisted or, alternatively, that further time be provided to obtain the medical documentation, noting difficulties in contacting the grievor.

The arbitrator found that the asserted hospitalization would provide an adequate explanation if proven, and granted an extension to December 23, 2025, for the union to provide the required documentation, failing which the deemed termination would take effect.

The union sought an adjournment of the grievance arbitration hearing after the grievor failed to appear.

The union noted recent difficulties in contacting the grievor and could not explain the absence.

The employer agreed to allow a time-limited opportunity for an explanation.

The arbitrator ruled that the grievance would be dismissed in 30 days unless the union provided details of the reasons for the grievor's failure to attend, subject to the employer's review and potential hearing on the sufficiency of those reasons.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The union explained that the grievor had a history of mental health challenges and could not engage with the grievance process at the time.

The arbitrator adjourned the matter sine die, ordering the grievor to provide a suitable explanation and supporting medical documentation for her non-attendance by January 5, 2026.

If no explanation is provided, the parties will be invited to make submissions on whether the grievance should be dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing, and the union was unable to provide an explanation for the absence.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievance be dismissed effective 30 days from the date of the award, unless the union provides sufficient reasons for the grievor's failure to attend in the interim.

The grievor, a probationary employee terminated for allegedly violating the employer's Aeroplan Reward Miles Policy, failed to attend his scheduled termination grievance hearing.

The Board granted an adjournment to allow the grievor to provide an explanation for his absence.

When the grievor failed to respond to the Union's subsequent communications or provide any explanation by the Board's deadline, the Board concluded that the grievor no longer wished to pursue his grievance and dismissed it.

The grievor failed to attend his scheduled termination grievance hearing despite receiving notice and confirming his intention to pursue the grievance with his union representative.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator directed the grievor to provide an explanation for his non-attendance to the union by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled video conference hearing for his grievance.

The union representative was unable to contact him.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled video conference hearing.

The Union representative advised that the grievor's contact information appeared invalid and that she was reportedly out of the country.

The hearing was adjourned at the Union's request.

The arbitrator directed the grievor to provide reasons for her non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievances may be dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to comply with a previous order from the Grievance Settlement Board.

The prior order directed the grievor to provide the union with reasons for her non-attendance at a hearing, failing which the matter could be dismissed.

The union confirmed the grievor was provided with the decision but did not respond.

With no objection from the union, the arbitrator granted the employer's motion and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

A video conference hearing was scheduled, but the grievor failed to attend or provide reasons for her absence, despite being contacted by the union representative.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide reasons for her non-attendance within 30 days, failing which the grievance may be dismissed without further notice.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding the termination of her employment.

In a procedural order to facilitate the production process, the Arbitrator directed the Employer to disclose the investigation report and all arguably relevant documents related to the termination.

The intervenor, Loblaw Companies Limited, brought a request to intervene in an application alleging employment discrimination against its employee.

The request was unopposed by the parties.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the intervenor had a significant interest in the proceeding because the allegations arose during the course of the respondent's employment and the requested remedies could impact the intervenor.

The applicant, a driver for the respondent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds and reprisal following a verbal altercation with a co-worker in the workplace parking lot.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to sanction the co-worker.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found the applicant could not establish any link between the incident and the prohibited grounds of discrimination, noting the applicant used the grounds as a catch-all for general unfairness.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, related to an ongoing effort to have her job modified following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the WSIB proceedings were still ongoing.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request to defer the application pending the outcome of the WSIB matter, as the subject matter and remedies substantially overlapped.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal following the settlement of a previous application.

The respondents requested further particulars regarding the reprisal allegations and moved to strike a schedule containing the allegations from the previously settled application.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the names of the individuals involved in the alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal also struck the schedule containing the previously settled allegations, noting that the respondents were entitled to rely on the full and final release signed by the applicant.

During a lawful strike by cleaning staff employed by Modern Building Cleaning at the Ontario Science Centre, the union alleged that both Modern and the Centre breached the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Centre's management had picked up garbage, and Modern had introduced new cleaning machinery.

On preliminary objections, the Board dismissed the allegations against the Centre, finding no prima facie case that it acted 'on behalf of' Modern.

The Board also dismissed the allegation that introducing new machinery breached section 73.1, as the statute does not prohibit the use of machinery to perform struck work.

The remaining allegations regarding bargaining unit personnel performing struck work were allowed to proceed, after which the parties settled.