GSB#2012-3523, 2012-3524, 2012-3525, 2012-3526, 2012-3527, 2012-3528, 2012-3529, 2012-3530, 2012-3531, 2012-3532, 2012-3533, 2012-3534, 2012-3535, 2012-3536

UNION#2012-0102-0060, 2012-0102-0061, 2012-0102-0062, 2012-0102-0063, 2012-0102-0064, 2012-0102-0065, 2012-0102-0066, 2012-0102-0067, 2012-0102-0068, 2012-0102-0069,

2012-0102-0070, 2012-0102-0071, 2012-0102-0072, 2012-0102-0073

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Winter)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Randi H. Abramsky

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Sheila Riddell Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Benjamin Parry Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

CONFERENCE CALL SUBMISSIONS

February 19, 2015 February 20, 2015

Decision

1A dispute has arisen concerning disclosure of the Grievor’s medical records. The grievances date from 2012, and cover allegations back to 2009. The Union has consented to provide the Grievor’s medical records from 2007, but has objected to providing any medical records prior to that time. The medical records in dispute, from the Grievor’s doctor, go back to 2004.

2Based on the submissions and case law provided, I conclude that the Grievor’s medical records for the period 2004-2007 should be made available to counsel for the Employer – only – to review to determine if any of the documents are “useful and necessary” to the substantive issues in dispute. Re Becker Milk Co. Ltd. and Milk & Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers and Allied Employees, Local 647 (1996) 1996 CanLII 20358 (ON LA), 53 L.A.C. (4th) 420 (Joyce), quoted in Re OPSEU (Richard) and Ontario Clean Water Agency, GSB 200-1220 (Abramsky). If counsel identifies such documents, and the Union still objects, we will deal with the dispute on an individualized basis.

3In so ruling, I conclude that the fact that the Grievor’s allegations may legally only go back to 2009 does not mean that a two-year cut off in regard to medical records is appropriate. The Grievor has alleged that the Employer’s actions have directly caused her harm and has relied on doctor’s reports to establish the harm. There has been some indication of pre-existing issues. In these circumstances, the Employer is entitled to review the Grievor’s medical records.

4At this time, however, in order to limit the disclosure of the disputed medical records, only counsel for the Employer may view them. No copies may be made, and the review is limited solely to this litigation and for no other purpose.