Ross Dunsmore

The plaintiff, an Executive Director of a long-term care facility, was terminated for cause after 21 years of service following an investigation into an undisclosed romantic relationship with a subordinate manager.

The court found the employer failed to prove just cause, noting the relationship was condoned and the investigation was flawed and conducted in bad faith.

The plaintiff was awarded 22 months' notice, plus benefits and bonuses, less disability payments and mitigation income.

The court also awarded $50,000 in moral damages for the employer's bad faith conduct during the dismissal and litigation.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the respondent for providing psychological services to a friend and referring him to a contract employee for an assessment.

The respondent admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent guilty of practicing in a conflict of interest and failing to maintain professional standards.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and a one-month suspension, which was suspended on the condition that the respondent complete ethics courses.

The applicant, a physician, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex and marital status against her former co-tenants.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that there was no employment relationship.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address whether the application was untimely.

At the hearing, the applicant requested to amend her application to add recent allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend due to untimeliness, lack of particulars, and prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as waiting for a related Small Claims Court matter to conclude or changing legal representation did not constitute valid explanations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board approving a settlement between a rival union and the employers.

The settlement declared two drugstore chains to be related employers and granted the rival union sole bargaining rights for all employees of the non-unionized chain in Ontario, including the Ottawa region where the applicant traditionally represented employees of the unionized chain.

The applicant was not given notice of the settlement or the underlying applications.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by unreasonably requiring the applicant to already represent employees of the non-unionized chain to be entitled to notice.

The Court held that the applicant was significantly affected by the decision and had a right to intervene.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding that the union violated the collective agreement by threatening a full-time firefighter with union charges if he accepted a volunteer position with the respondent town.

The arbitrator held that the union president's actions interfered with the town's right to use volunteer firefighters and that the union could not rely on its constitution to derogate from its obligations under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable.

The applicant, a bilingual customer service agent from Rwanda, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin after his employment was terminated.

He claimed that a series of workplace incidents, including a vacation request dispute, changes to the phone recording system, and disciplinary warnings, were motivated by his ethnic origin.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the respondents' actions to the applicant's place of origin.

The evidence demonstrated that the termination and prior disciplinary actions were based on the applicant's poor performance, insubordination, and failure to follow instructions, including a serious customer service failure involving a major client.

The application was dismissed.

The employer City applied to the Board to determine whether certain platoon chiefs exercised managerial functions under section 54(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, despite having already designated them as managerial exclusions under section 54(4).

The Association objected, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the status of designated individuals.

The Board agreed with the Association, finding that the Act provides two mutually exclusive routes for managerial exclusions.

Because the individuals were already conclusively deemed to be exercising managerial functions by virtue of the employer's designation, there was no 'question' for the Board to determine.

The application was permitted to proceed only with respect to non-designated persons.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 54(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for a declaration that Platoon Chiefs exercise managerial functions and should be excluded from the firefighters' bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties of Platoon Chiefs, noting that while they supervise shifts and are the highest-ranking officers present 70% of the time, they lack the authority to materially affect the economic lives of the firefighters they supervise.

They do not hire, fire, or effectively recommend discipline.

The Board concluded that Platoon Chiefs do not exercise managerial functions and remain in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought a determination of the bargaining unit description following the amalgamation of several municipalities into the City of Hamilton.

The parties agreed the unit should include all firefighters as defined by the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

However, the City requested a clarity note stating that duties of non-firefighters (managerial exclusions) shall be performed outside the bargaining unit, aiming to prevent the union from grieving the assignment of such work.

The Board declined to impose the clarity note, finding that doing so would improperly interfere with the union's right to enforce its collective agreement and bargain over the protection of bargaining unit work.

The Board defined the unit as agreed and remained seized of a separate issue regarding volunteer firefighters.

The responding firefighter associations raised preliminary objections to the employers' applications for declarations of managerial status under section 54(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The associations argued that the employers must first exercise their statutory right to designate automatic exclusions under section 54(4) before applying to the Board.

The Hamilton association also argued that the application was barred or premature due to the pending municipal amalgamation.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding that the legislation does not require the employer to use its designations before applying to the Board, and that the pending amalgamation did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to determine the composition of the existing bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time and casual nurses at the responding hospital.

A representation vote was held within five days of the application, resulting in a majority for the union.

The employer challenged the vote, arguing the short timeframe and single voting day provided insufficient notice and access for casual employees.

The Board dismissed this objection, finding the statutory five-day quick vote model applied and the parties' own efforts ensured adequate notice.

On the issue of the bargaining unit description, the Board agreed with the employer that the part-time unit should 'mirror' the historical full-time unit, which was restricted to nurses providing direct nursing care, to avoid serious labour relations harm.

A final certificate was issued for the restricted unit.

The complainant, a black francophone man of Haitian origin, alleged that he was repeatedly harassed by co-workers at Westinghouse because of his race, colour, and place of origin.

The co-workers used derogatory language and racial slurs.

The complainant reported the harassment to management, but the employer failed to conduct a proper investigation or take adequate steps to stop the harassment.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant was subjected to a course of vexatious comment and conduct based on prohibited grounds, and that the employer's response was grossly inadequate.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $7,500 in damages for mental anguish.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by laying off the grievor before he could accumulate six months of service, which would have entitled him to industry-wide seniority.

The union argued that the six-month period could be aggregated from separate periods of employment and, alternatively, that the employer acted in bad faith to prevent the grievor from attaining seniority.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement required a single, continuous six-month period of employment to attain seniority.

The Board also found insufficient evidence to establish that the employer acted in bad faith in its layoff decisions.

The union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employers violated the provincial collective agreement by refusing to pay a $70.00 per diem travel allowance to employees working in a designated geographic zone.

The employers argued that the allowance was only payable if employees incurred overnight accommodation expenses, and that they could require proof of actual expenses.

The Board held that the plain language of the collective agreement entitled employees to the allowance whenever they worked a day in the zone, regardless of whether they incurred accommodation expenses.

The agreement only permitted a reduction in the allowance if the employer and the union agreed.

The grievances were allowed.

The applicant employer association referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a declaration that the Trustees of the Canadian Elevator Industry Pension Plan are not required to accept contributions from employers who are not bound by a valid collective agreement.

The responding trade union objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the dispute originated in Nova Scotia.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the Trustees had exercised their contractual power to refer the policy grievance to arbitration in Ontario.

On the merits, the union conceded the employer's interpretation, and the Board declared that the Trustees are not required to accept contributions from non-member employers.

The complainant employer association alleged that the respondent union breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had insisted on a single province-wide collective agreement for the elevator industry and refused to negotiate a separate agreement for non-ICI work, while negotiating separate non-ICI agreements with individual employers during a lawful strike.

The Board found that the union was bargaining within the scope of its rights and did not violate the Act by pressing its position to impasse or by making interim agreements with individual employers.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer's decision to lay off several employees was motivated by anti-union animus.

The employer argued the layoffs were strictly due to the loss of a major contract and a general economic downturn.

The Board found that while there were valid business reasons for downsizing, the specific selection of employees for the July layoffs was tainted by anti-union animus, as the laid-off employees were key union supporters.

The Board also found that letters distributed by the employer's president crossed the line of permissible free speech into undue influence by linking unionization to job insecurity.

A petition circulated by employees opposing the union was deemed involuntary due to the climate of fear regarding job security.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the unlawfully laid-off employees with compensation and certified the union.

The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay travel time to nine maintenance mechanics who attended a mandatory training course outside Metro Toronto boundaries.

The employer argued that attending a training course was a 'duty' rather than 'work' and that the travel expense provision only applied to the construction industry.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments, finding that the employees were performing work on behalf of the employer and that the plain language of the collective agreement entitled them to travel expense remuneration.

During a hearing for an application for certification, an issue arose during the cross-examination of a witness regarding a non-pay allegation.

The union requested that the witness be compelled to create twenty specimen signatures or produce documents containing twenty original signatures for comparison by an expert witness.

The Board ruled that the witness had the right to consult with counsel during his testimony under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board declined to compel the creation of new specimen signatures but directed the witness to produce existing documents in his possession containing twenty original signatures to facilitate the hearing.

The applicant employers' organization sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for certain employers in the residential sector of the elevator construction industry.

The Board had to determine whether several employers should be included on the Schedule E list of employers, which required analyzing whether their work constituted 'construction' (repair) or 'maintenance'.

The Board found that the work of four challenged employers constituted construction work, bringing the total number of employers on the list to eleven.

Because the applicant only filed representation evidence for five of those eleven employers, the application for accreditation was dismissed pursuant to section 127(2) of the Labour Relations Act.