S. Patterson

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit out-of-court text and Snapchat communications between alleged co-conspirators against the respondent, who is charged with first-degree murder.

The respondent argued the statements did not meet the necessity requirement because the declarants were available to testify.

The court granted the application, finding that the contemporaneous written communications were the best evidence available, the declarants were unlikely to be cooperative witnesses, and the statements met the threshold reliability and necessity requirements under the Carter test and the principled approach to hearsay.

The respondent is charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown brought an application to admit discreditable conduct evidence, specifically photographs and videos of the respondent with firearms, as well as firearms and ammunition seized from two residences.

The court applied the Handy framework, balancing the probative value of the evidence regarding means, opportunity, and identity against its prejudicial effect.

The court admitted several photos and videos connecting the respondent to 9mm ammunition and handguns similar to the unrecovered murder weapon, but excluded highly prejudicial images, including those depicting an Uzi and apparent drugs.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder, brought a facial challenge to the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant for his residence, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

He argued the ITO lacked reasonable grounds to implicate him or to believe evidence would be found at his home.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, viewed holistically, contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence—including witness descriptions matching the applicant, his association with co-conspirators, and evidence of prior conflict with the victim—upon which the authorizing justice could have reasonably issued the warrant.

The applicant, charged with murder, brought an application for disclosure of cell phone records from a separate homicide investigation, arguing they were relevant to a third party suspect defence.

The Crown argued the records were third party records subject to the O'Connor regime.

The court found that the police believed there was a connection between the two murders and that there was an air of reality to the third party suspect defence.

Consequently, the requested records were 'obviously relevant' and subject to the Crown's first party disclosure obligations under Stinchcombe.

However, the court found the applicant's request for the entirety of the cell phones' content was overly broad and ordered the Crown to provide a list of the types of information available so the applicant could make a tailored request.

The employer investigated widespread e-mail abuse involving the receipt and distribution of sexually explicit and offensive material.

Six employees were discharged and grieved their terminations.

In a preliminary assessment based on the employer's best case, the arbitrator held that the distribution of such material by e-mail could create a poisoned work environment in violation of the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention policy.

The arbitrator concluded that the misconduct was serious enough that discharge might be an appropriate response, and declined to reinstate the grievors at this preliminary stage.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of Investigators in the Special Investigations Branch, arguing they should have been included in a classification adjustment negotiated for Tax Auditors in a Letter of Understanding.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction to award a classification remedy.

The Board found the phrase 'positions of Tax Auditors' latently ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence of negotiating history.

Based on the evidence, the Board concluded the parties did not intend to include Investigators in the Tax Auditor classification adjustment, as the adjustment was specifically targeted at recruitment and retention issues for Tax Auditors.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to secure employment for bargaining unit members affected by the closure of several facilities and the transfer of their functions to broader public sector agencies.

The employer argued its efforts, which included holding an information day and sending letters to receiving agencies, were sufficient.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's efforts were de minimis and failed to meet the collective agreement's requirement to make reasonable efforts.

The Board directed the employer to hold meetings with the union, negotiate placements with financial incentives, and keep detailed records of surplusing activities.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to secure employment for bargaining unit employees affected by the closure of several facilities and the transfer of their functions to broader public sector agencies, as required by Appendix 9 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's efforts, which consisted merely of holding an information day, writing letters, and making inquiries without any negotiation or financial incentives, were de minimis and insufficient.

The Board declared that the employer breached the collective agreement and directed it to hold bi-weekly meetings with the union, negotiate placements with receiving agencies using financial incentives, and maintain detailed records of surplusing activities.

The grievor, a professional engineer, sought a retroactive salary increase for 1990 based on an interest arbitration award released in 1991.

Before the award was released, the grievor was promoted to the Senior Management Group (SMG), which is excluded from bringing working conditions grievances to the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the grievor was complaining about a matter that occurred while he was in a classification entitled to grieve, and he did not lose this right merely because he was subsequently promoted.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer bargained in bad faith and committed reprisals by abolishing the Quality Assurance Inspector positions after a successful classification grievance and salary arbitration.

The employer brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board to defer the matter to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board declined to defer, finding that the allegations involved significant statutory rights under the Labour Relations Act that were not essentially contractual in nature, and that the remedial powers of the arbitrator might be inadequate to address the alleged bad faith bargaining and anti-union animus.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, was appointed to an acting position outside the bargaining unit.

He filed a grievance seeking a declaration that his acting appointment had become a permanent appointment.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought, as the Civil Service Commission has exclusive authority to make permanent appointments.

Furthermore, the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor retained his bargaining unit classification, and therefore his working conditions were governed by the collective agreement rather than the regulations under the Public Service Act.