David Beck

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding its handling of her workplace accommodation in 1994 and 1995.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for undue delay, noting the applicant waited 18 months after the Ontario Human Rights Commission declined to hear her related complaint on the basis that it belonged before the Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the union's motion and dismissed the application, finding the 18-month delay was substantial, the applicant's reliance on her former counsel's advice was not a satisfactory explanation, and the union would be significantly prejudiced in defending against allegations concerning events from six years prior.

Following the dismissal of a human rights complaint, the respondent Police Services Board sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission under section 41.4 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent alleged the Commission's investigation was conducted in bad faith and caused undue hardship.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the investigation was flawed and failed to corroborate significant allegations, it did not amount to bad faith.

The Board also found no undue hardship, noting the respondent's own inconsistent documentation contributed to the lengthy proceedings.

The application for costs was dismissed.

The complainant, a visible minority probationary police constable, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his race and colour, specifically due to his interracial relationship with a white woman he met while on duty.

The respondent maintained that the termination was due to a combination of deteriorating performance, failure to pass physical fitness tests, and poor judgment and deceit regarding the relationship.

The Board of Inquiry found no evidence of differential treatment compared to white probationary officers and concluded that the termination was based on objectively justifiable considerations, including the complainant's lack of judgment and honesty, rather than racial discrimination.

The human rights complaint was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 72 hours forfeiture of time off following a guilty plea to discreditable conduct for using profane, abusive, or insulting language related to sex toward a female colleague.

The Commission upheld the finding that the single incident constituted a poisoned environment and that the hearing officer appropriately considered the impact on the victim.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to 45 hours forfeiture, finding that the police service's management shared responsibility for allowing a workplace culture of inappropriate conversation without having a sexual harassment policy in place.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.