Sean T. McGee

The applicant, a Fire Prevention Officer, suffered a workplace injury resulting in chronic pain syndrome.

He sought to return to his pre-injury position with accommodations, specifically the removal of the investigation duties, or to be placed in a dispatcher position.

The respondent employer refused, relying on outdated WSIB medical restrictions and arguing that removing the investigation duties would alter the fundamental nature of the position and cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to consider more recent functional abilities evaluations and medical evidence which indicated the applicant could perform the inspection and public education duties.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer failed to establish that accommodating the applicant by removing the investigation duties or placing him in the dispatcher position would impose undue hardship.

The application was allowed on the issue of liability, with remedy deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability and return him to his pre-injury position following a workplace injury.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was filed out of time and that the applicant's attempt to re-litigate his ability to perform his pre-injury duties was an abuse of process given prior WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the complaint was filed within one year of the employer's definitive decision that it could not accommodate him.

The Tribunal also held there was no abuse of process because the WSIB had not actually determined whether the applicant could be accommodated without undue hardship.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding a union grievance regarding teacher lunch breaks.

The school board had directed teachers to receive students in their classrooms five minutes before the start of afternoon classes, which the union argued violated the collective agreement's provision for a lunch period free of assigned tasks.

The arbitrator found that the school board had voluntarily fettered its discretion under O. Reg. 298 by agreeing to the collective agreement provision.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the regulation and collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to close the Collège des Grands Lacs, a francophone college.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to the applicants' undue delay of 29 months in perfecting the application, which caused significant prejudice.

In the alternative, the court found that the Minister did not breach the unwritten constitutional principle of protection of minorities, as the college was failing and alternative francophone education was arranged.

The court also held that the Minister had the statutory authority to close the college and the decision was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award dismissing a grievance for being filed outside the time limit set out in the collective agreement.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to provide reasons for rejecting a request to extend the time limit under the Canada Labour Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's failure to provide reasons on a subsidiary issue did not amount to a breach of natural justice or render the decision patently unreasonable, as the applicant had failed to adduce evidence justifying an extension.

The applicant union brought complaints alleging that the City of Ottawa and concert promoters engaged in an illegal lock-out.

The City required promoters renting its facilities to use members of a rival union for stagehand work.

The applicant argued this arrangement unlawfully deprived its members of work opportunities and constituted a lock-out.

The Board found that the City, as a property owner, was not acting as an employer of the stagehands and had no intent to compel the applicant's members to forego statutory rights.

The promoters' refusal to hire the applicant's members was a response to commercial conditions imposed by the City, lacking the improper motivation required for a lock-out.

The complaints were dismissed.

The respondent was offered a public service position subject to obtaining a security clearance.

CSIS advised against granting the clearance, and the Deputy Minister denied it.

The respondent complained to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which recommended granting the clearance.

The Deputy Minister refused to follow the recommendation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word 'recommendations' in section 52(2) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act should be given its ordinary meaning of offering advice, and does not constitute a binding decision.

The Deputy Minister retains the ultimate authority and responsibility to grant or deny security clearances.