Ron A. LeClair

The Union filed policy and group grievances regarding Flex Work Arrangements (FWA) for Field Staff.

The arbitrator ordered that Field Staff whose FWAs were suspended in 2020 due to the pandemic will have them reinstated no later than 30 days prior to the Return to Office (RTO).

The Employer will also consider new FWA applications from field staff no earlier than 30 days prior to RTO, and may change flex days or work assignments, with employees having the option to decline the FWA to keep their assignment.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer breached the Extended Hours Memorandum of Agreement regarding flex days and shift schedules.

Following case management discussions, the Union raised concerns about outstanding pre-hearing production.

The Arbitrator found the requested documents and information arguably relevant and ordered the Employer to produce them by April 30, 2026.

During a case management meeting, the Employer refused to participate if a specific Union representative, who was facing criminal charges related to the workplace, was present.

The arbitrator declined to order the representative to leave the virtual meeting, noting there was no basis to do so.

The arbitrator then directed the parties to agree on a timeline for addressing outstanding production issues and an Agreed Statement of Fact, which was subsequently issued as an order.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the Extended Hours Memorandum of Agreement by failing to evenly distribute flex days, requiring employees to attend the workplace, and suspending flex work arrangements.

The parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a case management schedule for document production and the preparation of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The arbitrator issued a consent order setting out the schedule and scheduling continuation dates.

The employer brought a preliminary motion challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear a grievance regarding the effective date of a collective agreement.

The employer argued that the Treasury Board Secretariat's statutory authority to ratify Crown agency collective agreements was outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the core dispute concerned the interpretation of the phrase 'date of ratification' within the collective agreement, which falls squarely within an arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction under section 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to recognize the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation as a paid holiday.

The Arbitrator found that the parties had reached a binding settlement during the grievance process when the Employer confirmed in writing it would recognize the day as a paid holiday and the Union subsequently withdrew its initial grievance.

In the alternative, the Arbitrator held that the day qualified as a 'special holiday' proclaimed by the Governor General under the collective agreement.

The grievance was upheld.

The plaintiff brought three unopposed motions in writing regarding two proceedings arising from the same alleged slip and fall accident.

The first two motions sought to consolidate the two actions, as the plaintiff had initially sued an unknown property management company and later commenced a second action upon learning its identity.

The third motion sought leave to amend the statement of claim in the consolidated proceeding to reflect the correct parties.

The court granted the consolidation, finding the proceedings had common questions of fact and law, and granted leave to amend the pleadings to correct the misnomer and remove discontinued parties.

The applicant's representative requested the adjudicator's recusal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from a Case Assessment Direction.

The adjudicator dismissed the recusal request, finding no predetermination of the issues.

The Tribunal then considered whether the applicant's unlicensed representative was permitted to act under the Law Society Act exemptions.

The Tribunal found the representative did not qualify for the trade union exemption because his organization did not meet the legal definition of a trade union.

Furthermore, the representative had exceeded the permitted number of matters to qualify for the unpaid friend exemption.

Consequently, the representative was removed from the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction suggesting the application might be appropriate for deferral due to an ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) appeal involving the same facts and issues.

The respondent supported the deferral, while the applicant provided no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent decisions, noting that both proceedings addressed whether the applicant was terminated for reasons related to her injury.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability following two workplace injuries.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant was pursuing a concurrent WSIB appeal regarding her termination.

The Tribunal found that while the WSIB process might address whether the termination was related to her injury, it did not appear to address the separate claim of failure to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of her failure to accommodate claim and the respondent to provide an update on the WSIB appeal before deciding on deferral.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The applicant also requested early production of documents to determine their authenticity.

The Tribunal denied the request for production as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the standard rule that production is triggered by the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability and sex, approximately 19 months after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to financial difficulties, mental health issues, and the ill health of her legal team.

The Tribunal found that financial difficulties and lack of legal representation do not constitute good faith reasons for delay.

The applicant also failed to provide medical evidence for the relevant period to substantiate her claim of mental incapacity, and evidence showed she was actively pursuing other legal processes during that time.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.