Mireille Giroux

A dispute arose between the parties regarding the compensation owed to the grievor following his reinstatement pursuant to a prior Grievance Settlement Board decision.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay the grievor a further $21,628.64 within 90 days.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the renewal of the appellant's vendor and builder licence under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting s. 38(1)(b)(iii) regarding the standard for assessing past conduct, and made errors of fact regarding the appellant's evidence.

The Tribunal found no error of law in its interpretation of the statute, noting the clear wording requires a holistic assessment of whether past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that the business will be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Registrar proposed to refuse to renew the appellant's licence as a vendor and builder under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, citing the sole director's past criminal convictions.

The Tribunal found that the director's criminal conduct occurred 15 years ago, he had since been rehabilitated, maintained good credit, and was forthright about his history.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant could be expected to be financially responsible, carry on business with honesty and integrity, and that renewal was not contrary to the public interest.

The Registrar was directed to renew the licence without conditions.

The parties consented to an order extending the deadline for the Union to provide particulars and documents to the Employer.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide the materials by June 17, 2022, and the Employer to provide submissions on any preliminary issues by August 26, 2022.

The Union is precluded from raising new issues or providing further particulars beyond this date, subject to specific exceptions.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer did not have just cause to terminate the Grievor.

The parties agreed on the amount of lost wages, which the Employer was ordered to pay.

The Arbitrator remained seized of any disputes regarding additional compensation or issues arising from reinstatement, and ordered the Union and Grievor to make a request for production of documents related to the authorship of investigation reports.

The plaintiff, a cargo handler at Pearson International Airport, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain picketing by the defendant union, which was engaged in a legal strike against a neighbouring employer.

The plaintiff was not a party to the labour dispute but its operations were disrupted.

The court found that the plaintiff met the test for an interlocutory injunction, relying on issue estoppel from a previous injunction granted to the airport authority.

However, the court declined to grant the broader injunction sought by the plaintiff, instead limiting the order to the terms of the existing picketing protocol established in the previous order.

The parties disputed the calculation of remedial compensation following a previous decision that reinstated the grievor.

The employer required the grievor to return to work on short notice, and when she was unavailable for three days due to prior commitments, the employer did not pay her for those days.

The union argued this violated the reinstatement order.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's timeline was generally reasonable, but the grievor was reasonably unavailable for one of the three days due to a pre-existing appointment.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor for one day of lost wages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour against his employer, an individual respondent, and his union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the employer and individual respondent as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code, and the applicant's reliance on the union grievance process did not justify the delay.

The allegations against the union were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own beliefs to link the union's handling of his grievances to racial discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and union.

He claimed the employer delayed his medical treatment following a workplace injury and disciplined him discriminatorily, and that the union failed to properly represent him during a grievance process, coercing him into a settlement.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to provide evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged for failing to disclose an off-duty impaired driving charge for two years, contrary to the employer's policies.

The union grieved the dismissal, arguing it was disproportionate.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor committed a serious breach of policy, the off-duty conduct did not strike at the core of the employment relationship.

Applying the McKinley and Dowling frameworks, the Board concluded that dismissal was an overly harsh and disproportionate response.

The grievance was allowed in part, substituting a 20-day unpaid suspension and ordering reinstatement with partial compensation.