Kamal Bakhazi

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its unfair labour practice complaint without a hearing.

The complaint alleged that the respondents improperly applied a local collective agreement over a provincial agreement in the construction industry.

The Divisional Court held that the application was not premature despite the applicant's failure to seek reconsideration from the Board.

However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board had reasonably concluded that the two collective agreements could co-exist, that inquiring into the complaint served no labour relations purpose since the affected employer did not participate, and that the declaratory relief sought was of limited practical utility.

The Grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged after an altercation with an inmate in a maximum-security unit.

The Employer alleged the Grievor used excessive force, including prohibited closed-fist strikes, and engaged in unprofessional behaviour by intentionally intimidating the inmate.

The arbitrator found the Grievor's evidence lacked credibility and preferred the testimony of other correctional officers and video evidence.

The arbitrator concluded the Grievor instigated the physical altercation by invading the inmate's personal space, threatened the inmate, and used excessive force by punching the inmate while he was restrained by other officers.

Finding no significant mitigating factors and noting the Grievor's failure to take responsibility for the most serious misconduct, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance and upheld the discharge.

During a discharge grievance hearing for a correctional officer terminated for alleged excessive use of force against an inmate, the Employer sought to call an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on the officer's actions.

The Union objected, arguing the arbitrator was capable of assessing the evidence without expert assistance.

Applying the Mohan/White Burgess framework, the arbitrator qualified the witness as an expert in use of force and defensive tactics.

The expert was permitted to testify on whether the officer's actions complied with Ministry policy, but was restricted from providing an opinion on the ultimate issue of whether the force used was excessive, which remained a factual determination for the arbitrator.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent award resolving a grievance between OPSEU and the LCBO.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor's full-time seniority date be adjusted to November 6, 2017, and that the LCBO pay the grievor $5,406.62 for lost earnings, including lost wage increases, shift opportunities, and overtime opportunities.

The grievor's hourly wage rate was also adjusted to $31.95.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an employee who suffered electrical shocks at work, seeking $10,000 in damages for the employer's failure to maintain a safe workplace and a declaration of breach.

The employee had already received benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike the claims.

The arbitrator allowed the motion, finding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary damages for injuries compensable under the WSIA's no-fault scheme.

The arbitrator also dismissed the request for a declaration as moot, since the employer had already resolved the electrical hazard and no further incidents had occurred.

The respondent employer named the union (IBEW) as an additional respondent in its response to the human rights application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against the union because the employer did not identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by the union.

The employer agreed it made no specific allegations but reserved the right to do so in the future.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding it plain and obvious that the application raised no matters against it.