June Mills

The parties engaged in mediation but were unable to reach a settlement.

The Arbitrator set continuation dates for the hearing and established a timetable for the exchange of documents, particulars, and will-say statements in lieu of viva voce evidence in chief.

The parties met to attempt to mediate a settlement of the grievance.

They agreed to continuation dates in April 2026 and a case management schedule, including the use of 'will say' statements instead of viva voce evidence in chief.

The arbitrator issued a decision recording the agreed-upon timetable for the exchange of documents, particulars, and will say statements.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding she breached the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses of a settlement agreement by posting about her human rights complaint on LinkedIn.

The Tribunal had ordered the applicant to repay the full settlement amount as liquidated damages and granted an anonymization order protecting the respondents' identities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the settlement agreement, its enforcement of the liquidated damages clause, and its decision to grant anonymization were all reasonable.

The union grieved the employer's decision to limit remote work to a maximum of three days per week upon the return to the workplace following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The union argued this blanket rule violated the collective agreement by fettering the discretion of local managers to approve alternative work arrangements (AWAs) for up to four days of remote work, which had been the previously announced office standard.

The arbitrator found that while establishing an office standard is a valid exercise of management rights, the employer's memos effectively directed managers not to consider requests for AWAs in excess of the three-day remote work standard.

This constituted an improper fettering of the managers' obligation under the collective agreement to consider AWA requests in good faith.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to advise managers to consider such requests in good faith, though the arbitrator declined to order the implementation of a four-day remote work standard.