Rebecca Glass

The Union sought production of a confidential workplace restoration report and related documents, and requested that the grievor be permitted to adduce her evidence in chief by way of a will-say statement.

The Employer opposed both requests, arguing the report was confidential and not arguably relevant, and that oral testimony was required for credibility assessment.

The Arbitrator ordered production of the report with strict confidentiality restrictions, finding it arguably relevant for cross-examination or corroboration.

The Arbitrator also permitted the use of a will-say statement to improve efficiency, granting the same option to the Employer.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was properly served on the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a case management conference call to set procedural directions for two related grievances where the interests of the grievors were partially adverse.

The Vice-Chair issued directions requiring the evidence in chief to take the form of declarations, setting limits on the time for oral evidence and cross-examination, and establishing a schedule for the exchange of documents and declarations.

The procedure was inspired by the summary trial process under Rule 76.12 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.