Eric DelJunco

Following a decision upholding a student's expulsion, the parties engaged in an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The respondent school board sought an order varying the CFSRB's standard confidentiality order to permit the use of records and evidence from the expulsion appeal in the HRTO proceeding.

The CFSRB granted the request, directing that each party is permitted to rely on their own affidavits and exhibits in the HRTO application, provided the pupil's identity continues to be protected.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of her 7-year-old son, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, from his French immersion school following a physical assault on an educational assistant that resulted in a concussion and PTSD.

The Child and Family Services Review Board considered whether mitigating factors, such as the pupil's inability to control or understand the consequences of his behaviour, rendered the expulsion inappropriate.

The Board found that while the pupil could not control his behaviour, his continuing presence in the school created an unacceptable risk to the safety of staff and students.

The Board confirmed the expulsion, noting that the school board had made extensive efforts to accommodate the pupil and that a fresh start in an English-language program would likely be beneficial.

The union and the employer brought preliminary motions regarding particulars in a grievance arbitration.

The union sought an order for the employer to provide full particulars, while the employer sought to strike out portions of the union's 92-page particulars.

On the agreement of the parties, the Vice-Chair ordered that no further particulars were necessary, the union's particulars would stand as the grievor's examination-in-chief, and set a schedule for the exchange of arguably relevant documents.

Following a finding that the employer breached the collective agreement, the matter of damages was remitted to the parties.

The employer raised a jurisdictional objection regarding the board's authority to award damages resulting from a workplace injury.

On consent, the board adjourned the matter sine die for six months to allow the parties to further consider their positions.

The grievor was subject to an accommodation arrangement enabling her to work in Probation & Parole on secondment.

The Ministry required her to return to her home position as a Rehabilitation Officer at the Toronto South Detention Centre due to asserted operational urgency, which the union disputed.

Pending full consideration of the grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board issued interim directions extending the secondment briefly to allow for training completion and case transfer, mandating vacation use, and setting conditions for her return to the home position.

The Union filed policy and individual grievances alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to respond to media reports quoting a correctional officer and his counsel who claimed there were 'white supremacist' officers at the Toronto Jail.

The Union argued the Employer had a duty to issue public and internal statements defending non-racialized staff and mitigating the harm caused by the comments.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer's decision to refrain from commenting on a matter before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, while remaining ready to assist affected employees, fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a case management order consolidating multiple grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor up to April 22, 2015.

The Board directed the union to provide supplementary particulars and scheduled the next hearing date to address the employer's obligation to file reply particulars and other preliminary matters.

The grievor, a nurse at a correctional facility, grieved that she was verbally assaulted by an Operational Manager and that her health and safety rights were violated when the manager allowed an unsearched, angry member of the public into the secure health care office.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the manager's out-of-control behaviour and breach of security protocols constituted a verbal assault and a severe violation of the grievor's health and safety rights.

The Board accepted medical evidence that the incident caused the grievor to suffer complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and remitted the quantum of damages to the parties for agreement.

The employer requested particulars regarding a series of grievances alleging discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate the grievor's disability over a lengthy period.

Following a conference call, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide full particulars to the employer by a specified date.

The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved a 10-day suspension and a non-disciplinary transfer imposed after he allegedly showed a naked photograph of a female co-worker to another employee.

The union argued the grievor showed a picture of a different woman and that the co-worker fabricated the story.

The arbitrator resolved the factual dispute in favour of the employer, finding the co-worker's evidence more credible and that the grievor did show the complainant's picture.

The grievance was denied, upholding the suspension and transfer.

The union filed grievances regarding the employer's failure to respond to press statements.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision setting out the further conduct of the case.

The Board ordered that the determination of liability be bifurcated from the determination of remedy.

The threshold issue of liability will be argued based on the parties' statements of fact and agreed documents.

As part of ongoing systemic remedies regarding racist hate letters sent to the Toronto Jail, an independent review was conducted by Michael A. Davis.

The Vice-Chair directed that a hearing be convened to consider the Ministry's explanation for not implementing one or more of the recommendations from the Davis report, and to address other matters to optimize the Ministry's investigation.

The grievor requested a hearing arising from Minutes of Settlement over which the Vice-Chair remained seized.

A hearing was scheduled, but the grievor failed to provide particulars of the issue despite the employer's request.

As the parties were unable to prepare, the hearing was cancelled.

The Vice-Chair directed that particulars must be provided before any future hearing is scheduled.

The union requested an order for the appointment of an independent investigator to investigate a racist hate mail campaign at the Toronto Jail, arguing the employer's internal investigation was inadequate.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request as premature, finding that the employer had made substantial efforts and that the parties must first address the implementation of recommendations from a previous review of the employer's investigation.

The union filed a grievance regarding the denial of a paid leave of absence for compassionate purposes under the collective agreement.

Days before the arbitration hearing, the union sought to argue that the denial also constituted discrimination on the basis of family status and other prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The employer objected to this expansion of the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that the human rights allegations were not part of or inherent in the original grievance, and the employer could not have reasonably expected that the grievance included such claims.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was verbally assaulted by a manager, seeking $50,000 in general damages for emotional harm.

The Union intended to call the grievor's psychotherapist, who reported the incident triggered pre-existing PTSD.

The Employer brought a motion for production of the psychotherapist's clinical notes from 2003 and 2004.

The Union opposed, arguing the historical notes were irrelevant and highly personal.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered production, finding the notes relevant due to the pre-existing condition and holding that the Employer's right to a fair hearing outweighed the grievor's privacy concerns, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Union brought an application requesting that the Employer be ordered to proceed first in a mediation-arbitration concerning a lay-off grievance and subsequent bumping grievances.

The Union alleged bad faith, claiming the grievor was targeted.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the application, holding that established jurisprudence requires the party making allegations of bad faith to proceed first so the responding party can adequately respond.

The union requested a full, independent investigation into the provenance of anonymous racist letters that created a poisoned work environment at a correctional facility.

The appointed investigator provided a report, but the union was not satisfied and reiterated its request.

In preparation for the hearing on this request, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to confirm whether any other forensic behavioural profiles existed and to provide a detailed written summary of the steps taken to investigate a specific handwritten letter found in 2010.

In a grievance alleging harassment and discrimination in the filling of temporary positions outside the bargaining unit, the union sought to introduce evidence of facts underlying two previously settled grievances to establish a pattern of improper employer conduct.

The employer objected to the admission of this evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, reaffirming the sanctity of settlements.

The Board found no 'special circumstances' or flagrant employer conduct that would justify an exception to the general rule against litigating the factual matrices of resolved grievances.

In an ongoing grievance arbitration concerning racist letters in the workplace, the Grievance Settlement Board received a confidential oral interim report from an appointed investigator.

The Board directed the investigator to complete the review and provide a written report by May 31, 2012, after which a further decision will be issued.