Glen Chochla

The Toronto Police Service (TPS) denied Yazdan Khorsand's application for special constable employment with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) based on a pre-screening background check, without disclosing reasons or information.

Khorsand sought judicial review, arguing a breach of procedural fairness and systemic discrimination.

The Divisional Court found the decision judicially reviewable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed this, holding that the pre-screening decision was part of a private employment hiring process by the TCHC, not a sufficiently public exercise of state authority by the TPS Board, and therefore not amenable to judicial review.

The court emphasized that the broad public impact of a decision does not automatically make it judicially reviewable and that public law remedies were unsuitable given the need to protect sensitive law enforcement information.

The applicant, a racialized individual with no criminal record, applied for a Special Constable position with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

He was denied the position after failing a pre-screen background check conducted by the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB).

The TPSB refused to provide reasons or disclose the information relied upon.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that the TPSB's decision was of sufficient public character to be subject to judicial review and that the TPSB breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with reasons and an opportunity to respond.

The decision was quashed and remitted to the TPSB.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance regarding the grievor's removal from a Painter 2 position, arguing it was filed outside the collective agreement's time limits.

The Union conceded the grievance was untimely but argued the Employer was estopped from relying on the time limits due to past practice, or alternatively, that the arbitrator should exercise discretion under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time.

The arbitrator found no clear representation by the Employer to support estoppel.

Applying the factors for extending time limits, the arbitrator concluded the delay was excessive, the Employer was not forewarned, and the Union failed to provide a justifiable explanation.

The preliminary motion was upheld and the grievance dismissed.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the union was improperly attempting to expand the scope of a policy grievance regarding a job posting.

The union initially argued that the grievor should have been awarded the position based on seniority, but later sought to argue in the alternative that the employer exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's objection, finding that the union was still relying on the same collective agreement provision and that the alternative argument was inherent in the proper interpretation and application of that provision.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his union and his former employer, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

The applicant withdrew his application against the union at the start of the summary hearing.

Regarding the employer, the applicant alleged that a set of work rules imposed as a condition of re-employment were only applied to him as a person of colour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence that the work rules were applied differentially.

The grievor, a casual employee, grieved a three-day suspension for alleged misconduct.

The parties directed the arbitrator to issue a bottom-line award without written reasons, determining only whether a suspension was warranted.

The arbitrator concluded that the employer failed to discharge the burden of proving that a suspension of any length was warranted, and directed the employer to rescind the suspension and compensate the grievor.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance concerning a three-day suspension was untimely.

The grievance was filed approximately eleven weeks after the deadline due to an inadvertent error by the union representative.

Applying the factors from Becker Milk, the Vice-Chairperson found reasonable grounds to extend the time limit under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, noting the grievor was not to blame, the grievance affected his continued employment, and the employer suffered no prejudice.

The employer's timeliness objection was dismissed.

The grievor, a casual employee at the LCBO warehouse, grieved two separate two-day suspensions.

The first suspension was for alleged insubordination for failing to follow a foreman's direction to assemble a different order while waiting for a pallet.

The second suspension was for failing to advise the foreman of an early departure time and failing to return an early departure form as directed.

The arbitrator found the grievor guilty of insubordination for the first incident but reduced the penalty to a one-day suspension because the employer skipped a step in progressive discipline.

For the second incident, the arbitrator found the employer failed to prove the grievor did not advise the foreman of his departure time, but found the grievor failed to return the form to the foreman as directed due to an uncooperative attitude.

The second suspension was also reduced to one day.

The union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a settlement agreement by not reinstating two grievors.

The Board found that the parties had amended the settlement during a telephone conversation, waiving the employer's obligation to reinstate the grievors on the specified date.

The employer had offered to reinstate them, but the union indicated it was not necessary.

The union subsequently failed to refer the grievors to the project when requested by the employer.

The Board concluded there was no violation of the settlement and dismissed the application.

The union sought production of documents relating to interpersonal conflict between the grievor and another individual.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to produce all such documents, excluding privileged ones, on the condition that they be used exclusively for preparing for the hearing.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union failed to provide him with an audited financial statement, contrary to section 87(2) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, and that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 by donating funds contrary to its constitution.

The Board ordered the union to provide the financial statement, finding that mere access to the information did not satisfy the statutory requirement.

However, the Board dismissed the section 76 complaint, holding that the duty of fair representation only regulates the union's conduct vis-a-vis the employer, and the alleged constitutional breach was a purely internal union matter.