16 total
Requests to dismiss human rights complaints regarding special education accommodations for lack of jurisdiction and mootness denied.
The respondents requested the dismissal of human rights complaints on the grounds that the Special Education Tribunal (SET) has exclusive jurisdiction over the identification, placement, and accommodation of students with special needs, and that the complaints were moot because the students were no longer enrolled with the respondent school board.
The Tribunal dismissed both requests.
It found that because the parties had agreed on the formal placement, the SET's own jurisprudence indicated it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining disputes about programs and services, meaning the SET did not have exclusive jurisdiction here.
The Tribunal also found the complaints were not moot because there remained a live controversy about whether the students were properly accommodated while enrolled, for which remedies like damages and declarations could still be awarded.
Tribunal requested further submissions on whether the Special Education Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over special needs accommodations.
In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint against a school board, the Tribunal requested further submissions from the parties on the issue of whether the Special Education Tribunal (SET) has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the identification, placement, and accommodation of students with special needs.
The adjudicator noted a recent SET decision suggesting it lacks jurisdiction over programming details when the placement itself is not in dispute, and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the implications of this decision before ruling on the preliminary jurisdictional issue.
Merit pay grievances found timely based on subjective awareness; retroactivity limited to standard 20-day rule.
The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified employees claiming entitlement to merit pay.
The employer objected that the grievances were untimely because they were filed months after the implementation of a new ministry policy on merit increases.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievances were timely because the employees only subjectively became aware of their right to grieve shortly before filing.
On the issue of retroactivity, the Board declined to award full retroactivity to the employees' dates of hire, instead applying the standard 20-day retroactivity rule, limiting compensation to the period commencing 20 days prior to the filing of the grievances.
Grievance dismissed; one-year window for disabled employees to accept job offers after divestment was not discriminatory.
The grievor, a Property Assessor, was off work on long-term disability when the employer divested its Property Assessment Division to a new entity.
The employer and union negotiated an agreement whereby disabled employees had a one-year window to recover and accept a job offer with the new entity.
The grievor did not recover within the one-year window, and when he sought to return to work later, his position no longer existed in the Ontario Public Service.
The union grieved that the one-year limit and the failure to accommodate him constituted discrimination on the basis of handicap.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the appropriate comparator group was employees whose jobs had been eliminated while on disability benefits, and that the one-year window was actually a beneficial grace period rather than discriminatory.
Grievance dismissed; time worked through a temporary agency does not count towards continuous service date.
The grievor sought to have her continuous service date adjusted to include a period of nearly four years during which she worked for the Ministry through a temporary agency, Office Overload, prior to her appointment to the public service.
The Employer moved to dismiss the grievance, arguing that under established Board jurisprudence, service under a third-party contract cannot be included in the calculation of continuous service.
The Union conceded this point.
The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance, confirming that the collective agreement and applicable jurisprudence do not permit third-party agency work to be counted as service in the public service.
Grievance dismissed; employee electing Factor 80 retirement is not entitled to separation allowance for resignation.
The grievor was declared surplus and elected to retire under the Surplus Factor 80 program.
He subsequently grieved, claiming entitlement to a separation allowance under Article 20.3 of the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 20.3 applies only to employees who resign, not those who retire.
Furthermore, electing the Factor 80 option requires an employee to waive all other surplus entitlements, including the separation allowance.
Motion for recusal dismissed; prior experience with parties in labour arbitration does not establish bias.
The employer brought a motion requesting that the Vice-Chair recuse herself from hearing a policy grievance due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The employer argued that the Vice-Chair's prior experience mediating and arbitrating disputes between the parties, and specifically her familiarity with the phrase 'removed from the table' in the context of joint committee meetings, created an apprehension of bias.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that in the context of labour arbitration, an adjudicator's prior knowledge and experience with the parties and their collective agreement does not, without more, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Employer's preliminary motion to dismiss grievance for delay denied; grievor acted promptly upon discovering policies.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievor's pay on promotion grievance on the basis of delay.
The grievor filed the grievance in April 2003, complaining about compensation for acting assignments and promotions dating back to 1998.
The grievor argued he only became aware of the relevant policies in March 2003.
The Board found the grievor's explanation for the delay credible and reasonable, noting he acted promptly upon becoming aware of the policies.
The Board concluded that the employer would not be inevitably prejudiced by the delay and dismissed the preliminary motion, allowing the grievance to proceed to a hearing on the merits.
Employer ordered to produce internal emails and accommodation records; union to produce grievors' medical files.
The union requested production of various documents from the employer, including an investigation file, internal emails regarding a manager's behaviour, and records relating to the grievors' absences and accommodation.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of the requested emails and accommodation records, but deferred the request for the conciliator's investigation file pending review of the retainer terms.
The employer requested production of the grievors' complete medical files, which the union undertook to obtain, review for relevance, and produce subject to potential redactions.
Union ordered to provide particulars of grievor's allegations prior to mediation-arbitration.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order following a conference call.
The Union was ordered to provide particulars regarding the grievor's allegations to the Employer by October 18, 2004.
A mediation-arbitration date was set for November 15, 2004.
The Board noted that if the Union failed to provide the particulars, the Employer could bring a motion to dismiss the grievance.
Latent ambiguity found in MOU; extrinsic evidence established one-year time limit for LTIP employees.
The union filed a grievance regarding the interpretation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dealing with the treatment of employees on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) during a divestment to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC).
The employer argued that despite the absence of an explicit time restriction in the MOU, the parties had agreed to a one-year time limit for LTIP employees to return to work and commence employment with OPAC.
The Grievance Settlement Board found a latent ambiguity in the MOU and admitted extrinsic evidence, concluding that the mutual intention of the parties during negotiations was to impose a one-year time limit.
The Board ruled that the MOU ought to be read as containing a one-year time limit.
Board orders grievor to provide particulars on compensation policy grievance and defers pay for performance issue.
The employer requested particulars regarding a grievance alleging failure to properly implement the pay for performance policy and failure to follow compensation policies for acting assignments.
The Public Service Grievance Board adjourned the hearing on consent and deferred the pay for performance issue pending the reconsideration of a related decision.
The Board ordered the grievor to provide specific particulars regarding the policy failure issue, including the material facts, dates, and representatives involved, by June 22, 2004.
Employer ordered to produce relevant timekeeping records despite union's late request during arbitration hearing.
The union brought a motion during an arbitration hearing requesting that the employer be ordered to produce records detailing the time spent by certain employees on the Vehicle Resolve Project.
The employer objected, arguing the request was untimely.
The arbitrator found that the records were relevant to the issues in dispute and that, given the hearing schedule, an order for production would not delay the proceedings.
The employer was ordered to produce the requested records.
Board will hear extrinsic evidence before determining if it discloses latent ambiguity or establishes estoppel.
In a grievance concerning a return to work following a divestment, the employer sought to adduce extrinsic evidence to disclose a latent ambiguity or establish an estoppel regarding a Memorandum of Understanding.
The union objected.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that it would hear the proposed extrinsic evidence before determining whether it discloses a latent ambiguity or establishes an estoppel, noting that the evidence was expected to be relatively brief.
Appeal dismissed with costs for the reasons provided in a companion appeal.
The appellant appealed an order of the Divisional Court.
The appeal was heard together with a companion appeal involving the City of Toronto and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
For the reasons provided in the companion appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal with costs.
Grievance for moving expenses dismissed as untimely due to unjustified two-and-a-half-year delay.
The grievor filed a grievance seeking reimbursement for moving expenses incurred after he relocated from Kingston to Ottawa, alleging his 1995 assignment to Kingston should have been treated as temporary.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely, noting it was filed two and a half years after the employer denied his request.
The Public Service Grievance Board found the delay significant and the grievor's explanation of fearing reprisal unjustified.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievance as untimely.
