GSB# 2018-2429; 2018-2734

UNION# 2018-5112-0155; 2018-5112-0191

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Lisak)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Nimal Dissanayake

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Gil Fischler Unified LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Katie Ayers Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

April 21, 2026

Decision

1The Grievor filed two grievances with respect to issues arising out of the salary progression freeze that occurred during 2016 and 2017.

2The first grievance, dated September 7, 2018, alleges that the Employer did not correctly calculate the Grievor’s merit date following the salary progression freeze (Grievance 1). The second grievance, dated September 17, 2018, alleges that the Employer did not adjust the Grievor’s wage level following the salary progression freeze (Grievance 2).

3The Union provided particulars with respect to Grievance 1 on March 16, 2026. In an around the same date, the Union withdrew Grievance 2. Therefore only Grievance 1 remains before the Board.

4The Employer responded to the Union on March 31, 2026, and advised that it intended to bring three preliminary objections to Grievance 1. The first preliminary objection raised the issues of laches and/or abandonment and delay, since the grievance had been filed in 2018. The second preliminary objection took the position that the particulars failed to disclose a prima facie breach of the Collective Agreement. The Employer’s final preliminary objection was based on res judicata and issue estoppel, based on prior decisions of the Grievance Settlement Board.

5The Union provided additional details with respect to Grievance 1 shortly before the hearing date. The Union also advised the Employer it intended to lead evidence with respect to the issue of delay.

6At the hearing on April 21, 2026, the parties engaged in settlement discussions, but were unable to resolve Grievance 1.

7After hearing representations from the Parties, I have decided to issue a timeline with respect to next steps in this matter, in order to ensure the effective and efficient hearing of this grievance.

BOARD ORDER

[A] I order the Union to make best efforts to provide particulars with respect to the evidence it intends to rely upon with respect to the issue of delay by May 29, 2026. The Union shall also produce all documentation it intends to rely upon with respect to this issue and advise the Employer if it intends to call viva voce evidence.

[B] The Employer shall make best efforts to respond to the Union’s particulars by June 19, 2026. If the Employer intends to lead evidence with respect to the issue of delay or rely on additional documentation, it shall provide the Union with an outline of that evidence and produce all documentation it intends to rely upon.

[C] The Parties shall prepare to argue all three preliminary objections during the next hearing dates scheduled, and to lead any evidence.

8The parties have agreed to explore the possibility of reaching an agreed statement of facts to reduce or eliminate the need for viva voce evidence. Should the parties need the Board’s assistance with respect to pre-hearing matters, they may request a conference call with the arbitrator.

9The hearing with respect to the Employer’s preliminary objections will proceed on July 20 and 29, 2026. The Board remains seized.