Jordanna Lewis

The Employer brought preliminary motions challenging the timeliness and prima facie validity of six grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor.

The grievances alleged discrimination, harassment, and a failure to accommodate the grievor's disability following a motor vehicle accident.

The Arbitrator found that the first grievance was largely out of time, declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, and found that the timely portions failed to establish a prima facie case.

The sixth grievance was also dismissed as untimely.

However, the Arbitrator allowed the second, third, fourth, and fifth grievances to proceed, finding that the allegations regarding the ongoing failure to accommodate the grievor and return her to work were timely and sufficiently particularized.

At a case management hearing, the parties confirmed that one of the two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor had been settled.

The arbitrator noted that she was no longer seized of the settled grievance.

For the remaining active grievance regarding the conversion of a fixed-term position to a regular position, the arbitrator issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the employer to provide production and for the union to provide full particulars ahead of the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The Union sought a further order for production of documents related to grievances alleging breaches of the Employer's duty to accommodate the Grievor's medical restrictions.

The Employer did not object to the order.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce the Grievor's entire personnel file and all documents pertaining to the injury and accommodation by November 21, 2025.

The grievor, a Court and Client Representative, suffered a non-work-related concussion and was off work for over two years.

Upon her return, the parties agreed to a graduated return-to-work plan.

When the grievor struggled to progress with new duties, the employer paused her hour increases and requested an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

The grievor resisted the IME for several months.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer acted in good faith, provided extensive support, and was justified in requiring the IME to understand the grievor's medical restrictions and prognosis.

The employer fully satisfied its duty to accommodate.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by unilaterally changing the fire-retardant clothing provided to inspectors.

The grievor argued the new insulated coveralls were less comfortable and harder to use than the previous lightweight coveralls and winter jacket.

The Arbitrator dismissed the health and safety claims, finding the new clothing provided adequate protection and the grievor's concerns were based on preference rather than safety.

However, the Arbitrator found the employer violated article 9.4 of the collective agreement by changing the established practice regarding apparel without consulting or reaching an agreement with the union.

A declaration of breach was issued.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the employer to produce documents to the union.

The ordered production included correspondence, notes, and investigation reports regarding a complaint against the grievor, as well as documents and the investigation report concerning the grievor's WDHP complaint against the complainant.

The order was made without prejudice to future production requests.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances alleging workplace harassment, arguing they were barred by a prior Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) and the principle of the sanctity of grievance settlements.

The arbitrator found that the release clause in the MOS explicitly applied only to circumstances up to the date of signing, and the new grievances concerned a subsequent incident.

The employer's primary motion was denied.

However, the arbitrator upheld the employer's alternate motion, ruling that the union could not lead evidence relating to the prior settled grievances as background or context, as doing so would undermine the sanctity of the settlement.

The Union sought particulars concerning the Employer's preliminary motions and answers to outstanding production requests.

On consent, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to deliver all particulars and answer all outstanding production requests by March 7, 2025.

The deadlines were made peremptory on the Employer's ability to proceed with its preliminary objections.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his discrimination application at a summary hearing.

The HRTO had found that most of his allegations were out of time and did not constitute a 'series of incidents' under the Human Rights Code, and that he had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the HRTO misapplied the case law regarding a series of incidents and denied the applicant procedural fairness by restricting his submissions on available evidence.

The matter was remitted to the HRTO for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied vacation credits while on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP).

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely, having been filed over two years after the grievor ought to have known she was not accumulating vacation credits.

The union argued the employer waived its right to object by participating in the grievance process and taking fresh steps.

The arbitrator found the grievance was untimely and declined to extend the time limits under the Labour Relations Act.

The arbitrator also held that the employer did not waive its right to object, as it had reserved its rights while seeking necessary particulars to understand the vague grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated its duty to accommodate by permanently changing the Grievor's employment status from full-time to part-time.

The Union requested production of all seemingly relevant documents.

After the Employer failed to produce further documents as promised, a conference call was held.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to provide all documents arguably relevant to the decision to change the Grievor's employment status by October 18, 2024.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance on the basis that it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit set out in the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the employer had waived its right to object by taking fresh steps in the grievance process, including participating in a Formal Resolution Stage meeting, issuing a denial letter, and engaging in mediation, without raising the timeliness issue until two days before the hearing.

The arbitrator found that the grievance was indeed filed late.

However, the arbitrator held that the employer had waived its right to object to the late filing by failing to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity, despite a general reservation of rights.

The employer's motion was denied.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by failing to offer the grievors the Overall Responsible Operator (ORO) role, instead appointing a younger employee with a lower-level license.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and failure to plead a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator found that the collective agreement did not address ORO designations and that the Board lacked free-standing jurisdiction to review management rights absent a specific collective agreement provision.

Furthermore, the Arbitrator held that the Union's bald assertions of age discrimination lacked sufficient particulars to establish a prima facie case.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance for delay, arguing it was filed outside the 30-day time limit set out in the collective agreement.

The grievance alleged the employer failed to provide sick leave credits to the grievor while she was on a graduated return to work plan.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the failure to provide sick credits was not a single discrete decision but rather a continuing breach of the collective agreement that recurred each time the grievor worked the requisite number of days without receiving a credit.

Therefore, the grievance was timely, and any issues of delay would be addressed in the damages phase.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Toronto South Detention Centre, failed to comply with a Board order to confirm his intention to proceed with his application regarding an 8-hour disciplinary suspension.

He also failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application as abandoned.

Although the Board noted the employer's failure to comply with its own documentary disclosure obligations, it found this failure moot given the complainant's abandonment.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a detention centre, filed a grievance alleging anti-Black racism and bullying over a two-year period, as well as an unjustified 8-hour disciplinary suspension.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was abandoned, the complaints about the prior incidents were untimely, and the suspension complaint was premature and tainted by ex parte communications between the complainant and the Board's Registrar.

The Board held that the application was not abandoned and that the suspension complaint was timely and untainted, as the Registrar provided permissible legal information rather than advice.

However, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the prior incidents for remedial purposes because the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The complainant filed complaints relating to job competitions.

The employer raised preliminary objections.

The Board directed the complainant to provide written responses to the preliminary objections, but the complainant failed to do so.

After a further direction to explain the failure to respond went unanswered, the Board deemed the complaints abandoned and dismissed them.

The Grievor, a 35-year employee with a clean record, was given a one-day suspension without pay for providing short notice (about 12 hours) of his need to be absent from a scheduled shift to attend a Grievance Settlement Board hearing as a named grievor.

The Employer granted the time off with pay but disciplined the Grievor for violating its policy requiring four weeks' notice for planned absences, which caused scheduling stress and overtime costs.

The Arbitrator found that while the Employer could have reasonably denied the request under its policy, it could not discipline the Grievor after granting the time off.

The short notice was due to the Union's Grievance Officer's negligence, not the Grievor's culpable misconduct.

The grievance was allowed, and the discipline was ordered removed with full compensation.

The complainant filed grievances relating to job competitions.

The employer raised preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the complaints on a prima facie basis.

The Board directed the complainant to file written responses to the objections by a specified date.

The complainant failed to file responses or contact the Board.

The employer requested that the complaints be dismissed as abandoned.

The Board directed the complainant to provide written reasons for his failure to file, warning that the complaints would be dismissed if he failed to respond.

The parties engaged in mediation regarding a grievance filed by Chris MacDonald but did not reach a settlement.

The Arbitrator issued procedural orders setting deadlines for the Employer to respond to the Union's settlement proposal, provide particulars of a timeliness motion, and produce outstanding disclosure including correspondence and the Audit and Inspection Handbook.

Deadlines were also set for drafting a partial agreed statement of facts.