Cynthia Petersen

The Association filed a job competition grievance on behalf of the complainant, a Financial Analyst, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by awarding a permanent position to a non-bargaining unit applicant.

The collective agreement required preference to be given to the bargaining unit applicant where qualifications and ability were relatively equal.

The arbitrator found that while both candidates had excellent technical skills, the successful applicant possessed significantly better interpersonal, communication, and strategic skills, which were essential requirements of the position.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a job competition grievance, the Association sought to introduce an email provided by the employer during the grievance procedure, and objected to the employer introducing performance documents of the incumbent that were not before the selection committee.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the email was inadmissible as it was subject to grievance procedure privilege, having been disclosed to facilitate settlement discussions.

The Board further ruled that the incumbent's performance documents were relevant to the comparative assessment of candidates, but could not be admitted without proper authentication through a witness.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint against his union without a full hearing.

The applicant alleged the union failed to give him adequate notice of a grievance that ultimately displaced him from his permanent custodian position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by deciding the matter on written submissions, and that its conclusion that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith was reasonable.

The applicant commenced a Charter challenge against an Ontario regulation that terminated OHIP funding for sex reassignment surgery.

After years of complex litigation and shortly before the hearing on the merits, the government repealed the impugned regulation, rendering the application moot.

The applicant sought her costs thrown away.

The court held that the applicant was substantially successful in achieving her goal through the policy change and awarded her partial indemnity costs fixed at $200,000, noting the importance of not penalizing pro bono counsel in public interest litigation.

The applicant, a firefighter, alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

He claimed he was denied the opportunity to drive a fire truck, subjected to derogatory comments about his traditional food, and improperly directed to remove a baseball cap indoors.

The Tribunal found no prima facie case of discrimination regarding the cap and food incidents, as there was no evidence linking the actions to a prohibited ground.

While a prima facie case was established regarding the denial of driving duties, the respondents provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation based on the applicant's driving history and the Captain's discretion in assigning duties.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that required it to pay educational assistants for accompanying special needs students on an overnight camping trip.

The school board argued that the employees volunteered and were not 'required' to attend under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of 'required' as 'needed' was reasonable, justified, and fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of an employee, the parties made a written request regarding the disclosure of documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the investigator assigned to the grievor's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint to provide all interview notes and documentation of statements to Employer counsel.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of an employee for inappropriate use of IT resources, the Union brought preliminary motions regarding document production and an alleged change of grounds.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Employer to produce a confidential report prepared for the Deputy Minister, finding it arguably relevant, subject to confidentiality conditions.

The Board dismissed the Union's motion to preclude the Employer from relying on three images and an internet usage log, finding that their use did not constitute an impermissible change of grounds as they fell under the stated ground of inappropriate IT resource use.

The College brought allegations of professional misconduct against the Member, a teacher, for inappropriate behaviour including inappropriate touching of students, making inappropriate comments, and poor classroom management.

The Member pled no contest and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, the completion of courses in classroom management and professional boundaries, a performance review upon return to teaching, and publication of the decision.

The appellant teachers' federation appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitration award.

The grievance concerned a teacher returning from pregnancy leave who was assigned to teach a different subject than she taught before her leave.

The arbitration board held that under s. 43(1) of the Employment Standards Act, the teacher's 'position' meant a teaching position at the same school in a subject for which she was qualified, not necessarily the exact same subject.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's finding that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness, and that the arbitration board's interpretation was reasonable given the principal's statutory power to assign classes under the Education Act.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision dismissing a grievance concerning a teacher's teaching assignment upon her return from pregnancy leave.

The teacher, who previously taught Senior French, was assigned to teach Senior Science upon her return.

The arbitration board found no violation of the reinstatement or non-reprisal provisions of the Employment Standards Act, concluding that her 'position' was as a teacher at the school, not a specific subject assignment.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitration board's decision, finding it was reasonable given the annual nature of teaching assignments and the principal's statutory authority.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member who was convicted of possessing crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The member had a lengthy criminal record and breached his recognizance while on bail.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, the Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

Given the member's history of criminal convictions and disregard for court orders, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The complainant, a black vice-principal, alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race when he was repeatedly denied promotion to the position of principal by the Durham Board of Education.

The Board of Inquiry found that the school board engaged in both direct and systemic discrimination.

The complainant was subjected to racist comments during an interview, denied permission to take the principal's course, and offered less release time than white counterparts.

The school board's informal and inconsistently applied promotion criteria disproportionately disadvantaged black teachers, who were concentrated in treatment schools and hindered from transferring to regular schools.

The complaint against the corporate respondent was upheld, while the complaint against the personal respondent was dismissed.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss or permanently stay a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The respondents argued that the Commission's process was an abuse of process, breached procedural fairness, and that the significant delay between the events and the referral prejudiced their ability to defend the case.

The adjudicator applied the test for delay prejudice and found no evidence of prejudice of sufficient magnitude to impact the fairness of the hearing.

The adjudicator also found that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion to accept the complaint despite some events occurring outside the six-month window, and that there was sufficient evidence to warrant referral to the Board of Inquiry.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion seeking an order to compel the Ontario Human Rights Commission to permit access to the investigator who investigated the complaint.

Although the Commission subsequently agreed to allow access, the respondents requested a written ruling.

The Board of Inquiry held that the principles of disclosure from criminal and civil law apply to human rights proceedings.

The fruits of the investigation are not the property of the Commission, and there is no property in a witness.

Therefore, the respondents' counsel is legally entitled to interview the Commission's investigator.

The applicant union sought interim relief to prevent the exclusion of certain employees from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act pending a decision on the merits.

The Board held that while section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 limits interim orders to procedural matters, section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the Board a broader, general power to make interim orders related to its jurisdiction, which prevails due to the override provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

However, the Board declined to grant interim relief in this case, primarily because the applicant was unwilling to proceed expeditiously with a hearing on the merits.