GSB# 2023-03248, 2024-00253

UNION# 2023-0248-0153, 2024-0248-0044

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (McKeag)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)

Employer

BEFORE

Kelly Waddingham

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Nancy Virk Ryder Wright Holmes Bryden Nam LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Katie Ayers Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

December 17, 2024, June 26 and October 10, 2025

Decision

Introduction

1This written decision confirms the oral ruling delivered to the parties on Friday, October 10, 2025. It is the third case management decision in this matter, addressing the hearing process for grievances filed on behalf of James McKeag (“the grievor”).

2The grievances allege that the Ministry of the Solicitor General (“SOLGEN” or “the Employer”) discriminated against the grievor on the basis of disability and failed to accommodate him, resulting in lost pay and vacation credits.

Background

3The procedural history relevant to this decision is summarized below.

First Hearing Date & Case Management Direction

4The first case management direction was issued on December 30, 2024. The purpose of the direction was to facilitate the orderly exchange of particulars and to ensure that the matter was properly prepared for mediation. OPSEU was directed to deliver to SOLGEN comprehensive particulars, including a full explanation of the remedies sought and detailed calculations of all amounts or credits claimed, by April 1, 2025.

5The Employer subsequently agreed to OPSEU’s request to extend the deadline for the delivery of particulars from April 1, 2025 to April 25, 2025. Despite this extension, OPSEU did not deliver particulars until the first week of June 2025.

6On June 23, 2025, the Employer advised OPSEU that the particulars were insufficient and did not provide a full explanation of the remedies sought. On the same date, OPSEU sought the Employer’s consent to adjourn the hearing scheduled for June 26, 2025, due to a health emergency in the grievor’s family. The Employer did not provide its consent to OPSEU’s adjournment request.

7When the hearing convened on June 26, 2025, OPSEU requested an adjournment, explaining that the grievor was unable to attend because of the family health emergency. SOLGEN did not consent to the adjournment request and expressed its concern about the lack of procedural progress. The Employer submitted that the particulars provided by OPSEU were insufficient. The Employer requested that the grievances be dismissed, or alternatively, that a final compliance deadline be imposed.

Second Hearing Date & Case Management Direction – July 2, 2025

8In the second case management decision, dated July 2, 2025, OPSEU’s adjournment request of the June 26, 2025 hearing was granted, and the Employer’s motion to dismiss the grievances was denied.

9A new compliance deadline of August 27, 2025 was imposed for delivery of the particulars. The Employer was directed to advise OPSEU of any preliminary objections prior to the next hearing date, scheduled for October 10, 2025.

10On October 1, 2025, the Employer put OPSEU on notice that it intended to bring three alternate motions to dismiss the grievances. The first motion to dismiss the grievances was based on a failure to provide comprehensive particulars as ordered in the first case management decision dated December 31, 2024. If the particulars were found to be sufficient, the Employer’s second motion would be based on the failure to state a prima facie violation of the collective agreement. The third motion was an argument that the grievances fell outside the jurisdiction of the GSB, pursuant to the Monk line of cases. The Employer advised that it intended to make its preliminary motions at the hearing scheduled for October 10, 2025.

Third Hearing date & Case Management Decision

11On October 9, 2025, the parties requested an emergency conference call. OPSEU sought an adjournment of the October 10, 2025 hearing to obtain a medical opinion based on a concern that the grievor might be suffering from a cognitive impairment. SOLGEN was not prepared to provide its consent and was prepared to argue its preliminary motions to dismiss the grievance at the hearing scheduled on October 10, 2025.

12OPSEU was directed to make its adjournment request at the hearing scheduled on the following day. OPSEU requested that the hearing convene at 12:00 p.m. not the scheduled 10:00 a.m. start time because the grievor had an academic test that morning. This request was denied.

13The hearing convened at 10:00 a.m. on October 10, 2025. OPSEU requested an adjournment to obtain a medical opinion, based on its concern that the grievor might be suffering from a cognitive impairment that may be interfering with his ability to assist in preparing the particulars.

14SOLGEN did not oppose a short adjournment but did so without prejudice to its right to challenge any medical evidence provided or to bring its preliminary motions to dismiss the grievance(s) based on the sufficiency of the particulars; failure to state a prima facie case and that the Grievance Settlement Board does not have the jurisdiction to award the requested remedies as per the Monk line of cases.

15A brief adjournment is warranted to allow OPSEU to obtain medical documentation regarding the grievor’s capacity.

OPSEU shall have until December 15, 2025, to obtain a medical opinion confirming whether the grievor is medically capable of:

(a) assisting in the preparation of the grievances for mediation or hearing;
(b) attending mediation or hearing;
(c) providing instructions to union counsel;
(d) giving evidence and being cross-examined; and
(e) otherwise participating in the proceedings.

16The parties are directed to contact the GSB to schedule a conference call after OPSEU has obtained the medical opinion, to determine next steps.