Robert Fredericks

The applicant Ministry sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision reinstating a Transportation Enforcement Officer who was terminated after pleading guilty to off-duty indecent acts.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and upheld the termination, finding that the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Board misapprehended medical evidence regarding the employee's long-term risk of reoffending and unreasonably diminished the significance of the Millhaven criteria for off-duty conduct, particularly the negative impact on the employee's credibility as a peace officer required to testify in court.

The Union requested an order directing the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to produce the complete investigation file relating to a complaint of sexual assault made by the Grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request and ordered the OPP to produce the file to Union counsel, subject to conditions including the redaction of personal information of non-parties, confidential law enforcement material, and privileged information, and restricting the use of the records to the current proceeding.

The appellant union filed grievances claiming damages for employees' exposure to second-hand smoke in correctional facilities.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for injuries compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, regardless of whether the claim was framed in tort or contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the substance of the claim precludes the Board from awarding damages for compensable injuries.

The union filed grievances on behalf of seasonal employees alleging that the employer improperly reduced the duration of their seasonal contracts and failed to offer pre-season work.

The union argued that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus, involved improper contracting out, and were contrary to the doctrine of promissory estoppel based on alleged promises made to the grievors.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence of anti-union animus or improper contracting out.

The Board also rejected the estoppel claims, concluding that there were no clear and unequivocal promises intended to affect legal relations, nor was there detrimental reliance by the grievors.

The Union sought interim relief to compel the Employer to provide Crown counsel with information that an inspector's discharge was being challenged at arbitration, in the context of a McNeil disclosure letter.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the relief sought had essentially been obtained because the inspector's views, including the fact that his discharge was proceeding to arbitration, had already been put before the Crown.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed approximately 29 disputes under the collective agreement raising the same issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights claims and that deferral is the normal approach when concurrent proceedings raise the same issues.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's introduction of paid parking at the Downsview Complex.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance without a hearing, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the collective agreement did not address parking, and that the remaining allegations did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board held it had no jurisdiction to deal with the introduction of paid parking or its reasonableness, as the collective agreement contained no restrictions on management's right to introduce it.

However, the Board allowed the grievance to proceed to a hearing solely on the allegations that the employer contravened the discrimination and health and safety provisions of the collective agreement.

The union applied for interim relief to direct the employer to treat certain employees as included in the bargaining unit pending the arbitration of their exclusion due to organizational changes.

The union argued that the employees would lose job security rights if laid off while excluded.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the application, finding that the alleged harm was entirely speculative as no employees had been identified for layoff, and that the Board had the capacity to fashion an appropriate remedy if necessary.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by hiring new fixed-term employees for a temporary exhibit without posting the positions.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the union's particulars did not establish a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the collective agreement did not oblige the employer to post temporary assignments of less than six months.

The employer's motion to dismiss the grievance was granted.

The union filed individual grievances alleging the employer failed to pay call-back pay as required by the collective agreement.

The parties agreed to have the Grievance Settlement Board rule on a preliminary interpretative issue based on assumed facts regarding whether the grievors, who had flexible start times within a designated window, had a 'next scheduled shift' within the meaning of the call-back pay provision.

The Board adopted a purposive approach and concluded that the grievors did have a next scheduled shift, remitting the matter back to the parties.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the agreement reached by the parties on December 19, 2011, constitutes an order of the Board.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for a minimum of one year, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The charges stemmed from an off-duty assault on his child and the improper retention and storage of police property and documents over a 14-year period.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer properly weighed the mitigating factors, including the officer's exemplary employment history, against the seriousness and repetitive nature of the misconduct.

The penalty was deemed reasonable and consistent with similar cases.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, which he claimed led to his constructive dismissal when he retired.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's retirement date was not an 'incident' of discrimination and that the last alleged discriminatory act occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a one-year demotion from first-class to second-class constable, imposed after he was found guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved falsely recording an authorized missed lunch break and repeatedly refusing to surrender a personal journal referenced in his memo book.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably considered the officer's prior disciplinary history, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the principles of progressive discipline in determining the penalty.

The applicant, a 65-year-old firefighter, was required to retire from his operational position due to mandatory retirement provisions.

He was re-assigned to a non-operational position at a lower base rate of pay, though he received a top-up to his previous base salary for 30 months.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, arguing his top-up should be based on the higher Acting District Chief rate he frequently earned prior to retirement, rather than his base Captain rate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to maintain a worker's previous higher rate of pay when accommodated in a lower-paying position, and that the employer's voluntary top-up based on his permanent classification was not discriminatory.

The appellant police officers appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from a warrantless entry into a tenant's private residence while responding to a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer failed to consider their good faith and intentions.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably applied an objective test based on the reasonable expectations of the public, and correctly concluded that the officers' unauthorized entry constituted a trespass that would bring discredit to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved the officer issuing but failing to serve six traffic tickets, resulting in an innocent man being wrongfully convicted and incarcerated for five days.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, upholding the findings of misconduct, and concluding that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the egregious nature of the officer's actions and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The applicants, five firefighters, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary motions.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's motion to remove the union's legal counsel, finding no prior solicitor-client relationship existed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' motion to disqualify the applicants' unlicensed representative, finding he fell within the 'unpaid friend' exemption under the Law Society Act and his representation did not constitute an abuse of process.

Finally, the Tribunal declined to consolidate the five applications, as each raised unique factual issues regarding the duty to accommodate.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing its grievance regarding post-65 retirement benefits under a collective agreement following municipal amalgamation.

The union argued the arbitrator unreasonably rejected extrinsic evidence and misinterpreted a grand-parenting clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusions on both the extrinsic evidence and the interpretation of the eligibility requirements were reasonable.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had stopped a motorist and issued five summonses, but also prepared a second set of six summonses using the driving history of another individual with the same name.

The officer failed to serve the second set of summonses but later testified in court that he had, resulting in the innocent motorist being convicted in absentia, fined, and incarcerated for five days.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt, noting it was well-supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding the officer's actions constituted egregious misconduct that caused a serious miscarriage of justice and irreparably damaged his usefulness to the police service.