Peter Dailleboust

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying him a merit increase.

In this interim decision, the Public Service Grievance Board directed the self-represented complainant to provide particulars of the alleged discrimination, including the specific prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual assertions supporting the claim.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying him a merit increase.

In this interim decision, the Public Service Grievance Board directed the self-represented complainant to provide specific particulars regarding the alleged discrimination, including the prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual assertions supporting the claim, before determining next steps.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying her a merit increase.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued an interim decision directing the self-represented complainant to provide specific particulars regarding the alleged discrimination, including the prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual basis for the claim.

The Board held the matter in abeyance pending receipt of these particulars, after which it would determine next steps.

The Complainant failed to provide a necessary undertaking regarding material offered to be produced by the Employer, despite previous Board directions.

The Board directed the Complainant to advise whether he intends to pursue the complaint by a specified date, failing which the complaint will be considered abandoned and dismissed.

The complainant failed to provide a necessary undertaking regarding material offered to be produced by the employer, despite previous Board directions.

The Board directed the complainant to advise by October 18, 2021, whether he intends to pursue the complaint.

If the complainant fails to respond, the complaint will be considered abandoned and dismissed.

The complainant failed to provide a necessary undertaking regarding material offered to be produced by the employer, despite prior Board directions.

The Public Service Grievance Board directed the self-represented complainant to advise by October 18, 2021, whether she intends to pursue the complaint.

The Board noted that failure to respond would result in the complaint being considered abandoned and dismissed.

Two correctional sergeants grieved the termination of their employment following the death of an inmate in custody.

The inmate, who was suffering a mental health crisis, died after a use of force incident where he was left in a prone position while restrained.

The Employer alleged the complainants failed to properly supervise staff and breached policies regarding the use of restraints and spit hoods.

The Grievance Board found that while both complainants made errors in judgment and breached certain policies, their actions were not premeditated and reflected a failure in performance rather than intentional misconduct.

The Board concluded that termination was an excessive penalty for both employees, reinstating one without compensation and remitting the other's penalty to the parties.

The Complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following a prior decision determining the Board's jurisdiction, the Board directed the Employer to advise whether it objects to providing certain document production to the Complainant, which had been previously provided in a related consolidated complaint.

The Complainant, an employee in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following a preliminary decision that the complaint could proceed, the Board directed the Employer to advise whether it objected to providing the Complainant with the same production it had provided in a related, now-closed complaint.

The complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following a prior decision determining the Board's jurisdiction, the Board directed the employer to advise whether it objects to providing certain production to the complainant, which had been provided in a related, now-closed complaint.

The complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following a prior decision determining the Board's jurisdiction, the Board directed the employer to advise whether it objects to providing certain production to the complainant, which had been previously provided in a related, now-closed complaint.

The Complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Board previously determined the complaint could proceed on this basis.

Noting that the Employer had provided certain production in a related, now-closed complaint, the Board issued an interim decision directing the Employer to advise whether it objects to providing the same production to the Complainant in this matter.

The Complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following the closure of a related lead case, the Public Service Grievance Board issued an interim decision directing the Employer to advise whether it objects to providing the same production to the Complainant as was provided in the lead case.

The grievor, a Black woman, alleged that a White co-worker deliberately shoved her in a narrow hallway.

The employer appointed an internal investigator who concluded the contact was accidental and that the grievor had exaggerated her claim to extract a financial settlement.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence to determine whether the contact was an assault or an accident.

However, the arbitrator found the employer's investigation was deeply flawed, unfair, and failed to meet the required standards under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the collective agreement.

While the union argued the investigator's conclusions were tainted by implicit anti-Black bias, the arbitrator found insufficient evidence to prove unconscious bias on a balance of probabilities.

The arbitrator ordered the investigator's report removed from the employees' files and remitted the matter to the parties to determine monetary damages for the unfair investigation.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer breached its health and safety obligations by failing to remove a roadside memorial erected outside the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The memorial, dedicated to inmates who died in custody, caused psychological harm and triggered post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in correctional officers who were first responders to the deaths.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer failed to take every precaution reasonably necessary to protect the health and safety of the employees.

The grievance was allowed, and the Employer was ordered to remove the memorial and retain its contents for 30 days to allow families to collect their property.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to prevent a poisoned work environment by not addressing harassing and bullying conduct and by reinstating the alleged harasser.

At the close of the union's case, the employer brought a non-suit motion seeking to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator applied the standard of a prima facie case and found that there was some evidence to support the claim.

The employer's non-suit motion was dismissed.

The complainants challenged the Employer's refusal to grant their requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaints, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the VEP did not form a term or condition of employment until an application was approved.

Relying on a previous decision involving the same program, the Board agreed that the complaints did not allege a violation of an existing term or condition of employment.

The preliminary motion was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The grievor, a newly hired correctional officer, was terminated after the employer discovered he had falsely stated on a pre-employment security screening declaration that he had not been charged with any criminal offences.

In fact, he was facing off-duty criminal charges related to a family law dispute.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor's dishonesty provided just cause for discipline, termination was not a proportional response given his discipline-free record, the lack of a nexus between the off-duty charges and his employment, and his immediate truthfulness when confronted.

The termination was rescinded and replaced with a 10-day unpaid suspension.

The complainant, a retired manager, filed a complaint alleging his performance rating was arbitrarily and discriminatorily lowered, denying him a pay increase.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11, finding it lacked jurisdiction on three grounds: the Regulation expressly excludes complaints about performance evaluations and resulting compensation; the complainant was retired and no longer a public servant when he filed the complaint; and the complaint was filed well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint alleging her 2019-2020 performance rating was maliciously changed by the Employer, resulting in lost wages.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction because O. Reg. 378/07 expressly precludes complaints about the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the resulting compensation.