Karin Galldin

Several public sector unions filed grievances against the Crown in Right of Ontario, arguing that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation should be recognized as a paid holiday under their respective collective agreements.

The collective agreements provided that employees were entitled to any special holiday 'proclaimed by the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor'.

The employer argued that the holiday was created by Royal Assent to a statute, rather than by an executive proclamation, and therefore did not fall within the collective agreement language.

The arbitrator rejected the employer's argument, finding that the parties intended to include any new holiday established by the federal or provincial government, and that Royal Assent by written declaration constituted a proclamation.

The grievances were upheld.

In a grievance arbitration concerning whether the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is a paid holiday under various collective agreements, the employer sought to introduce evidence regarding its consultations with Indigenous partners and its reasons for treating the day as one of learning and reflection rather than a paid holiday.

The unions objected to the admission of this evidence.

The arbitrator ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that it was irrelevant to the mutual intention of the parties at the time the collective agreements were negotiated and would cause unnecessary delay and prejudice.

The plaintiff brought a civil action alleging assault, sexual assault, harassment, intentional infliction of mental distress, discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, and negligence arising from her arrest by police officers following an altercation during a traffic stop.

The court considered whether the officers used excessive force during the arrest and detention, whether sexualized comments and touching constituted sexual assault, and whether the conduct amounted to intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court relied in part on the plaintiff’s prior guilty plea to obstructing a police officer and accepted the officers’ evidence that the plaintiff had bodychecked one officer and resisted arrest.

It held that the police were justified in using reasonable force under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code and that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged torts on a balance of probabilities.

Claims under s. 46.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code were also dismissed because the provision was not in force at the time of the events.

The applicant alleged that her former employer terminated her employment as a property manager because of her marital status, specifically due to her husband's decision to stop working for the company.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to the discovery that the applicant had used company funds to purchase appliances for personal use without authorization.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant's marital relationship was a factor in the termination decision, accepting the respondent's explanation that the dismissal resulted from a loss of trust following the discovery of the unauthorized purchase.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Board member erred in law by concluding he lacked jurisdiction to award a rent abatement for a cockroach infestation, despite the tenants not specifically requesting it in their original materials.

The court also found the member erred by basing the $1,000 fumigation compensation award on a finding unsupported by evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board to determine the appropriate rent abatement and reasonable fumigation compensation.