Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services), 2012 CanLII 67528

GSB#2009-3165

UNION#2010-0999-0008

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Susan L. Stewart

Chair

FOR THE UNION

Kate Hughes Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP Barristers and Solicitors Lorne Richmond Counsel for AMAPCEO Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Benjamin Parry and Robert Fredericks Ministry of Government Services Legal Service Branch Counsel

HEARING

October 23, 2012.

Decision

1A hearing was convened following a request from OPSEU to have the Board address an issue of disclosure of employment discipline information. The events that precipitated this request for interim relief involved a draft letter provided to an inspector indicating Crown counsel’s intention to disclose information in connection with the inspector’s termination from employment. The draft letter related to a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging contraventions of construction regulations and referred to the information being disclosed to the defence pursuant to the Crown’s obligations in R. v. McNeil. The inspector was involved in the investigation and it is intended that he testify at trial. The draft did not disclose that a grievance had been filed and was proceeding to arbitration.

2Crown counsel solicited submissions from the inspector prior to the letter being sent out, to be received by September 28, 2012. The inspector did not receive the letter, as he was away from home, however upon receipt of the letter he requested an extension of the deadline, which was granted. By letter dated October 5, 2012, Ms. Hughes made submissions to Crown counsel on behalf of the inspector. It was noted in those submissions that a grievance had been filed and that the matter was proceeding to arbitration. On behalf of the inspector it was submitted that no disclosure letter should be sent on the basis that McNeil does not address similar employment discipline and does not oblige the Crown to disclose this kind of information, the disclosure process set out by the GSB as endorsed by the Divisional Court does not require the disclosure of employment discipline of that nature and that the information was not relevant to the prosecution.

3The Employer advanced a number of preliminary arguments regarding the Board’s ability to deal with the interim relief application. As well, the Board heard argument on the merits of the interim relief application. The Union’s request for interim relief, as it relates to this particular matter, is that the Employer should be compelled to provide Crown counsel with information regarding the fact that the discipline had been challenged with the matter proceeding to hearing, with the Crown in turn drafting another letter for the inspector’s review and submissions. I agree with the Employer’s submission that the relief sought has in essence been obtained, in that a full articulation of the inspector’s views, including the fact that his discharge is proceeding to arbitration, has been put before the Crown. Accordingly, aside from any issue of the validity of the preliminary objections, it is my view that the Union’s request for interim relief must be rejected on its merits.

4For the foregoing reasons the Union’s application is dismissed. I make no ruling on any of the other arguments made before me.