Currie v. Peel District School Board, 2024 ONSC 4354
CITATION: Currie v. Peel District School Board, 2024 ONSC 4354
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 365/23 DATE: 20240812
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Before: Backhouse, Lococo and Leiper JJ.
BETWEEN:
Robert Currie
Applicant, acting in person
– and –
Peel District School Board and Ontario Labour Relations Board
Respondents
Counsel: Sean M. Reginio, for the Respondent Peel District School Board Andrea Bowker, for the Respondent Ontario Labour Relation Board
HEARD at Toronto: July 23, 2024
BY THE COURT
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1] The self-represented applicant Robert Currie brings an application for judicial review of the decision of the respondent Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “OLRB” or the “Board”) dated May 19, 2023 (the “Decision”), reported at 2023 49393. He also challenges the OLRB’s reconsideration decision dated January 8, 2024 (the “Reconsideration Decision”), reported at 2024 3331. The Decision and the Reconsideration Decision together are referred to as the “Decisions”.
[2] The applicant was an elementary school teacher with the respondent Peel District School Board (the “School Board” or the “PDSB”). The applicant brought two applications before the OLRB, alleging that the School Board contravened the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1 (the “OHSA” or the “Act”) by retaliating against him after he raised a safety concern with the Ministry of Labour. In the Decision, the OLRB dismissed the applications. In the Reconsideration Decision, the OLRB declined to reconsider the applications’ dismissal.
[3] Among other things, the applicant submits that the Decisions were unreasonable and should be set aside. He requests that the matter be remitted to a different OLRB panel for determination.
[4] For the reasons below, we are dismissing the judicial review application.
II. Background
[5] The applicant became an employee of the School Board in 2001, working as an elementary school teacher. The terms of his employment were governed by a collective agreement between the School Board and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (the “ETFO”): Decision, at para. 5.
[6] In 2022, the applicant made two applications to the OLRB, alleging unlawful reprisal against him by the School Board in contravention of s. 50 of the OHSA.
[7] Section 50 of the OHSA provides in part:
No discipline, dismissal, etc., by employer
50 (1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall,
(a) dismiss or threaten to dismiss a worker;
(b) discipline or suspend or threaten to discipline or suspend a worker;
(c) impose any penalty upon a worker; or
(d) intimidate or coerce a worker,
because the worker has acted in compliance with this Act or the regulations or an order made thereunder, has sought the enforcement of this Act or the regulations or has given evidence in a proceeding in respect of the enforcement of this Act or the regulations or in an inquest under the Coroners Act.
Arbitration
(2) Where a worker complains that an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer has contravened subsection (1), the worker may either have the matter dealt with by final and binding settlement by arbitration under a collective agreement, if any, or file a complaint with the Board in which case any rules governing the practice and procedure of the Board apply with all necessary modifications to the complaint.
Same [Inquiry by Board]
(4) On an inquiry by the Board into a complaint filed under subsection (2) or a referral made under subsection (2.1), sections 110, 111, 114 and 116 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 apply with all necessary modifications.
[8] The applicant proceeded by way of complaint to the OLRB under s. 50(2) of the OHSA. In the first OLRB application, the applicant alleged that the School Board denied him a 0.1 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) teaching position at Lorne Park Public School without justification in response to his attempt to enforce his rights under the OHSA. The applicant alleged that the School Board’s retaliatory action followed the applicant’s May 2022 complaint to the Ministry of Labour concerning the School Board’s refusal to provide him with anti-fatigue mats: Decision, at para. 6.
[9] In the second application, the applicant alleged that the School Board “removed” a 0.1 FTE teaching position at Lorne Park without justification in response to his attempts to enforce his rights under the OHSA, “including by … ‘giving evidence’ to a Ministry of Labour inspector concerning his claims of harassment and accommodation issues” in September 2022. The applicant alleged that he had secured a 0.9 FTE placement for the 2022-2023 school year, consisting of 0.1 FTE position at Lorne Park and 0.8 FTE position at Tecumseh Public School, and was subsequently awarded an additional 0.1 FTE position at Tecumseh, bringing his total assignment to a 1.0 FTE position. He alleged that the School Board then unilaterally eliminated the 0.1 FTE position at Lorne Park, leaving him with the 0.9 position at Tecumseh. The applicant argued that this deprivation constituted an unlawful reprisal under s. 50 of the OHSA: Decision, at para. 8. The OLRB directed that the two applications be heard together.
[10] At the applications hearing, the OLRB granted intervenor status to the ETFO as the statutory bargaining agent representing the applicant in his employment with the School Board. An EFTO representative attended the OLRB applications hearing but did not take a position on the merits: Decision, at para. 3.
[11] Prior to the applications hearing, the applicant sought direction from the OLRB by way of motion as to whether the OLRB would address several claims under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, that the applicant wished to advance in connection with the applications. As stated in the Reconsideration Decision, at para. 34:
Consistent with the applicant’s “motion” materials, the Board confirmed orally at the commencement of the March 3, 2023 hearing that its focus was on determining whether the PDSB committed an unlawful reprisal contrary to section 50 of the Act and that it would not be determining whether the PDSB violated the collective agreement, the [Employment Standards Act], the [Human Rights] Code or “policy”. However, the Board expressly advised the applicant that he was entitled to call any evidence he wished in support of his claims of reprisal under section 50 of the Act, and the applicant was therefore not deprived of the right to adduce any evidence he felt was necessary to address that issue. The applicant therefore had a full opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions in support of the Applications….
[12] The applicant was not represented by counsel at the applications hearing. As stated in the Reconsideration Decision, at para. 29:
It should be noted that the applicant elected to be represented by a friend without legal training or experience conducting hearings before the Board. The Board, cognizant of this fact, explained the hearing process in detail and advised the applicant that he would be required to adduce all evidence that he wished to rely upon during the hearing, as well as make all oral submissions on the issues in dispute. If the applicant took issue with any of the witness’s evidence, he had the opportunity to challenge that evidence in cross-examination.
[13] The only witness to testify at the applications hearing was the School Board’s Manager of Abilities, Wellness and Attendance, who was responsible for managing disability and accommodation issues of School Board employees. She was subject to minimal cross-examination: Decision, at paras. 9-10. The applicant did not call any witnesses or testify himself: Decisions, at para. 9; Reconsideration Decision, at para. 9.
[14] In her testimony, the School Board’s witness identified the attending physician’s statements (“APSs”) completed by the applicant’s physician, relating to medical restrictions on the applicant’s ability to perform his teaching duties. The applicant had relied on the APSs to justify his absence from work and the accommodations required to permit him to return. An APS dated March 17, 2022 identified the applicant’s “significant physical restrictions and cognitive impairments including limitations on standing, sitting, lifting, attention and concentration, learning and memory, judgement, organization & planning, communication, social interaction and adaptation”: Decision, at paras. 11-13. As set out in a return-to-work agreement effective April 11, 2022, the applicant was granted “a series of accommodations to address his medical restrictions” in the period ended June 30, 2022, which included “full spectrum lighting, white board, LCD projector, sit/stand desk, ergonomic chair, stools, ergonomic keyboard and mouse, and a laser pointer”: Decision, at para. 14.
[15] With respect to the applicant’s allegations relating to the retaliatory removal of a 0.1 FTE Lorne Park teaching position, the School Board’s witness testified that the applicant requested two positions for the 2022-2023 academic year: a 0.8 FTE position at Tecumseh and a 0.1 FTE position at Lorne Park, for a total of 0.9 FTE: Decision, at para. 16. By email dated June 10, 2022, the applicant was informed that the School Board would accommodate his medical restrictions in the 0.8 FTE Tecumseh location but was “not able to provide safe and suitable accommodations for you in the 0.1 FTE Lorne Park location”, taking into account the essential duties of that kindergarten position. Those duties included supervision of the children’s outdoor play, giving rise to “safety concerns for yourself and students” arising from his medical conditions: Decision, at para. 17.
[16] The School Board’s witness testified that given the School Board’s determination that it could not accommodate the applicant in the 0.1 FTE position at Lorne Park, it would provide him with an additional 0.1 FTE position at Tecumseh, bringing him to 0.9 FTE, the total amount he had requested. The result would be to mitigate any financial loss to the applicant: Decision, at paras. 22-23. However, the applicant took the position that he was entitled to a full 1.0 FTE assignment, stating by email his understanding that he had accepted the offer of an additional 0.1 FTE at Tecumseh without giving up his entitlement to 0.1 FTE at Lorne Park. In his email, he also stated his intention to file another claim of reprisal before the OLRB if the School Board did not agree that he was entitled to a full 1.0 FTE position: Decision, at para. 24.
[17] The School Board’s witness did not agree with the applicant’s position. She testified that after reviewing the medical documentation the applicant had submitted, she concluded that the applicant “was unable to be accommodated in the 0.1 FTE position at Lorne Park because of his functional limitations.” She also confirmed that “the PDSB’s decision had nothing to do with the applicant contacting the Ministry of Labour or otherwise asserting his rights under the Act”: Decision, at para. 27.
III. Initial Decision
[18] On May 19, 2023, the OLRB released the Decision, finding in favour of the School Board and dismissing the applications. At para. 36, the OLRB outlined the conditions necessary to secure a remedy under section 50 of the OHSA. Those conditions include the conclusion that the employer’s alleged adverse act “was a direct result of” the worker’s invoking the OHSA, requiring a “clear causal nexus” between invoking the OHSA and the adverse act: see Hogan v. E.C. King Contracting a division of Miller Paving Ltd., 2010 8391 (Ont. L.R.B.), at para. 7.
[19] At paras. 37-39, the OLRB reasoned:
On the uncontradicted evidence adduced by the PDSB that is before the Board, I am satisfied that the PDSB’s decision not to assign the applicant the 0.1 FTE position at Lorne Park, both in June 2022 and in September 2022, was a decision based solely on its assessment of the applicant’s (in)ability to perform the essential duties of that position given his functional restrictions. I am satisfied that the PDSB’s decision in this regard had no connection or nexus whatsoever to the applicant’s exercise of rights under the Act, and more specifically to his decision to contact the Ministry of Labour in May and September 2022.
I accept the PDSB’s characterization of the Applications as being at their core disputes over the workplace accommodation measures implemented by the PDSB. The Board has repeatedly held that the adjudication of disputes over accommodation do not fall within the scope of section 50 of the Act. In James [v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2008 46566], the Board described this principle as follows:
While it may arguably be possible to construe an employer’s deliberate decision not to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee as a penalty, that term does not cover situations like those in the present case where the evidence reveals that there is simply a difference of opinion as between the employer and the employee as to what constitutes reasonable accommodation under the terms of the Code. The term “penalty” implies a punishment for someone having done something and does not cover the present situation where the employer simply believes that the job assignment offered to the employee meets any obligations it may have to accommodate the employee concerned.
39 I agree with and adopt the Board’s analysis above. As stated, in the present case, I find that the decision of the PDSB not to grant the applicant the 0.1 FTE position at Lorne Park was made solely on the basis of its assessment of its (in)ability to accommodate the applicant in that position, and that these Applications are in essence a dispute over the PDSB’s conclusion in that regard.
[20] At paras. 40-41, the OLRB dismissed the applications, finding that the School Board “has discharged its onus and demonstrated that it did not commit an unlawful reprisal contrary to section 50 of the Act as alleged by the applicant.”
IV. Reconsideration Decision
[21] On June 14, 2023, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration with the OLRB. The applicant alleged that the Decision should be reconsidered for the following reasons: (i) because the applicant obtained “compelling fresh new evidence” that would lead the OLRB to reach a different result; and (ii) because of “witness tampering”, “obstruction”, and “perjury”. The applicant submitted that these issues caused the OLRB to commit an “obvious error” in the Decision: see Reconsideration Decision, at para. 13.
[22] On January 8, 2024, the OLRB released the Reconsideration Decision, declining to reconsider the Decision. The OLRB found that the applicant had not presented the “compelling fresh new evidence” necessary to reconsider the Decision and that large portions of the reconsideration request were simply efforts to reargue the same evidentiary and factual issues that had already been raised in the applications.
V. Judicial review application
[23] By notices of application dated June 19, 2023 and January 17, 2024, the applicant sought judicial review of the Decision and the Reconsideration Decision. The applicant also brought a series of preliminary motions that were heard together with the judicial review application.
A. The applicant’s preliminary motions
[24] Prior to the judicial review application hearing, the applicant brought a series of motions, including for: (i) adjournment of the judicial review application pending determination of the “MOL [Ministry of Labour] Harassment Investigation” relating to applicant’s allegations of harassment against the School Board; (ii) disqualification of School Board counsel for alleged misconduct, including providing fabricated evidence to the OLRB and witness tampering; (iii) referral of School Board counsel’s alleged misconduct to the Law Society of Ontario; and (iv) “summary judgment” setting aside the Decisions currently under review. In accordance with the case management judge’s directions, the preliminary motions were heard together with the judicial review application by the same panel.
[25] The School Board argued that the applicant’s motions should be considered in the context of the litany of legal actions (totaling over 50 claims or other proceedings, by the School Board’s count) that the applicant has initiated against the School Board and other organizations and individuals associated with his employment at the School Board. We agree. The instances of legal action include multiple applications before the OLRB and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, grievances that have been referred to labour arbitration, claims before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, claims against School Board employees under the Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, 2013, S.O. 2013, c. 6, complaints to the Law Society of Ontario, and several criminal charges sought by way of private prosecution.
[26] We also note that the applicant has sought to disqualify School Board counsel on previous occasions. For example, in its decision dated May 31, 2024, the OLRB referred to the applicant’s allegations underlying several motions (including disqualification of School Board counsel and his referral to the Law Society) as “bald and conclusory” and deserving of being “summarily dismissed.” As well, as indicated in case management directions relating to this judicial review application, allegations of a possible conflict of interest against School Board counsel were raised prior to the hearing, which the case management judge indicated would not be proceeding any further.
[27] We see no merit in the applicant’s submissions relating to his preliminary motions. As argued by OLRB’s counsel (and supported by the School Board):
a. The requested adjournment of the application to permit prior resolution of the MOL Harassment Investigation apparently relates to proceedings that are unrelated to this judicial review, the outcome of which could have no impact on this judicial review application;
b. The applicant’s motions are unsupported by affidavit or other proper evidence, the motion record consisting only of documents and submissions; and
c. “Summary judgment” and a referral to the Law Society are not available remedies on this judicial review application.
[28] Accordingly, we see no basis for granting the applicant’s preliminary motions and dismiss those motions.
B. Parties’ positions on judicial review and issues to be determined
[29] In the judicial review application, the applicant asks the court to set aside the Decisions and remit the matter to a different OLRB panel for determination.
[30] The applicant submits that the OLRB erred in failing to consider multiple facts in evidence, creating a flaw in logic under the reasonableness standard and several errors under the correctness standard. Among other things, he argues that the OLRB erred in accepting perjured evidence from the School Board’s witness, who he alleges was the subject of witness tampering by School Board counsel. The applicant also submits that the OLRB (i) has the authority to consider his rights under the Human Rights Code in assessing if a penalty has occurred under s. 50 of the OHSA, (ii) must enforce the legislative intent of s. 25(2)(h) of the OHSA (which requires an employer to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker”), and (iii) cannot alter the terms of the collective agreement through its decision. The applicant also argues that the OLRB, through its decision, seeks to change the “reverse onus burden” in s. 50 of the OHSA, which requires the employer to demonstrate that it did not commit an unlawful reprisal against the employee: see Decision, at para. 40.
[31] The School Board disagrees. The School Board submits that the applicant has not established that Decisions should be set aside. Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the School Board argues that the Decisions are eminently reasonable and fully supported with intelligible reasons that led to the results reached. The School Board also submits that to the extent the applicant is raising an issue of procedural fairness (by reason of his assertion that OLRB made a decision that was not supported by the facts), that position is without merit since, among other things, the weight the OLRB gave to the evidence is not a procedural fairness issue.
[32] The OLRB takes no position on the merits of the Decisions, limiting its submissions to the appropriate standard of review and its application. The OLRB agrees that the standard of review is reasonableness.
[33] Upon judicial review, the issues to be determined are:
a. Standard of review: What is the standard of review for the Decisions?
b. Application of standard of review: Did the Decisions meet the standard of review?
c. Procedural fairness: Was the applicant denied procedural fairness?
VI. Jurisdiction and standard of review
[34] The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to hear this application for judicial review: Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, ss. 2, 6(1).
[35] The standard of review that applies to an OLRB decision under s. 50 of the OHSA is reasonableness: Carney v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), 2021 ONSC 7590 (Div. Ct.), at para. 10. The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing that the decision is unreasonable: Vavilov, at para. 100.
[36] In Carney, at para. 10, the Divisional Court explained:
The issue for the court is not whether the decision under review is correct. The issue is whether it is reasonable, within the meaning of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, paras. 13, 83, 99 and 100. Decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in reprisal cases are afforded special deference, not only because of the Board's expertise but because of the strong privative clauses in ss. 114 and 116 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 c. 1. Section 50(4) of the OHSA specifies that these privative clauses apply to unfair reprisal complaints.
[37] More generally, appeal courts have consistently afforded labour relations boards “the highest levels of judicial deference on matters within their exclusive jurisdiction”: Maystar General Contractors Inc. v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1819, 2008 ONCA 265, 90 O.R. (3d) 451, at para. 42; see also Turkiewicz (Tomasz Turkiewicz Custom Masonry Homes) v. Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada, Local 1, 2022 ONCA 780, 476 D.L.R. (4th) 421, at paras. 91-92.
[38] The OLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by s. 50 of the OHSA in reprisal cases: see OHSA, s. 50(4); Labour Relations Act, s. 114(1). The OLRB’s decisions in reprisal cases should be afforded the highest level of judicial deference: Carney, at para. 10; Maystar, at para. 42.
[39] A tribunal is required to conduct its proceedings fairly. The degree of procedural fairness required is determined by reference to all the circumstances of the case, including those set out in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at paras. 21-28.
VII. Application of the reasonableness standard of review
[40] As explained below, we have concluded that the applicant has not discharged his burden of establishing that the Decisions were unreasonable. The Decisions to dismiss the applications and the request for reconsideration were reasonable and supported by intelligible reasons that justified the conclusions reached.
[41] As previously noted, in the Decision, at para. 36, the OLRB outlined the conditions necessary to secure a remedy under section 50 of the OHSA, which include the conclusion that the employer’s alleged adverse act “was a direct result of” the worker’s invoking the OHSA, requiring a “clear causal nexus” between invoking the OHSA and the adverse act. We agree that the OLRB correctly stated and applied this principle, citing its previous decision in Hogan, at para. 7.
[42] At para. 37, the OLRB outlined in detail the evidence before it, properly considered the applicable statutory provision, and appropriately applied the relevant jurisprudence with respect to section 50 OHSA applications. In doing so, the OLRB reasonably found on the evidence before it that the School Board’s decision not to assign the Lorne Park 0.1 FTE position to the applicant was based “solely on its assessment of the Applicant’s (in)ability to perform the essential duties of that position given his functional restrictions” and that the PDBS’s decision had “no connection or nexus whatsoever” to the applicant’s exercise of rights by contacting the Ministry of Labour in May and September 2022. At para. 38, the OLRB accurately described the applications as “disputes over workplace accommodation measures”, which the OLRB has “repeatedly held … do not fall within the scope” of s. 50 of the OHSA, citing James, at para. 64. The OLRB was entitled to make those determinations, which deserve deference.
[43] In the Reconsideration Decision, the OLRB provided a detailed and cogent basis for dismissing the request for reconsideration. The OLRB directly and thoroughly addressed each group of allegations that the applicant made in the request for reconsideration. Among other things, the OLRB reasonably concluded that the allegations did not constitute “compelling fresh new evidence” that merited reconsideration: Reconsideration Decision, at paras. 27-30. The OLRB also reasonably found that there was no foundation for the applicant’s claim that the School Board’s witness committed perjury at the application hearing: Reconsideration Decision, at para. 29.
[44] In addition, the OLRB did not give effect to the applicant’s submission that reconsideration was warranted because the OLRB had not addressed claims under the Human Rights Code that he wished to advance in connection with the OLRB applications. In his submissions before this court, the applicant again relied on the OLRB’s failure to address his Human Rights Code claims, this time as grounds for setting aside the Decisions on judicial review. He also argued that his equality rights under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[^1] were breached, citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s June 2024 decision in York Region District School Board v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2024 SCC 22, 492 D.L.R. (4th) 613.
[45] In the Reconsideration Decision, at para. 34, the OLRB reasonably rejected the applicant’s submissions relating to his Human Rights Code claims, noting that the applicant had been expressly advised that he was entitled to call any evidence he wished in support of his claims of reprisal under s. 50 of the OHSA and was therefore not deprived of the right to adduce any evidence he felt was necessary to address that issue. The same rationale justifies rejection of the applicant’s late-breaking reliance on an alleged Charter breach, which was not advanced before the OLRB.
[46] In the Reconsideration Decision, at para. 35, the OLRB further noted that several of the applicant’s other submissions were “effectively an effort to re-argue his case”, relating to issues that were “fully considered and determined in the Decision based on the evidentiary record before the Board.” The OLRB reasonably concluded that “it is not open to the applicant to file a request for reconsideration to take a ‘second kick at the can.’”
[47] Accordingly, the applicant has not established that the Decisions should be set aside as unreasonable.
VIII. Procedural fairness
[48] A tribunal is required to conduct its proceedings fairly. While the applicant did not directly raise the issue of procedural fairness in his submissions, we are satisfied that he was afforded procedural fairness with respect to his OLRB applications and request for reconsideration.
[49] In that regard, we note that the OLRB was mindful of the applicant’s status as an unrepresented party and made appropriate efforts to ensure he was treated fairly. Among other things, as noted in the Reconsideration Decision, at para. 29, the OLRB panel, being “cognizant” of the applicant’s lack of legal representation, explained the hearing process in detail, including the requirement to “adduce all evidence that he wished to rely upon during the hearing”. The panel also advised the applicant that “he was entitled to call any evidence he wished in support of his claims of reprisal under section 50 of the Act”: Reconsideration Decision, at para. 34. The OLRB reasonably concluded that the applicant had “a full opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions in support of the Applications”.
[50] As the School Board notes in their submissions, the applicant argued that the OLRB’s findings in the Decisions were not supported by the facts, potentially raising a fairness issue. While the applicant did not call any witnesses or testify himself at the OLRB applications hearing, the OLRB’s reasons in the Decisions demonstrate that it clearly considered the applicant’s position and his evidence. The weight that the OLRB gave to evidence is not a procedural fairness issue. The reasons set out in the Decisions amply support the outcome. The fact that the OLRB did not adopt the applicant’s position does not mean the Decisions were unreasonable nor that the applicant was denied procedural fairness.
IX. Disposition
[51] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. As the successful party, the School Board is entitled to its costs. Taking into account the applicant’s circumstances, costs are fixed at $1,000 all inclusive, payable by the applicant to the School Board within 90 days.
___________________________ Backhouse J.
___________________________ Lococo J.
___________________________ Leiper J.
Date of Release: August 12, 2024
CITATION: Currie v. Peel District School Board, 2024 ONSC 4354
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 365/23 DATE: 20240812
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Backhouse, Lococo and Leiper JJ.
BETWEEN:
Robert Currie Applicant
– and –
Peel District School Board and Ontario Labour Relations Board Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT
Date: August 12, 2024
[^1]: Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.