Sharan K. Basran

The applicant Health Unit sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that found it breached the collective agreement by offering straight-time payouts for accumulated comp time during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Health Unit argued the breach was authorized by the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act and O. Reg. 116/20.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review for interpreting the emergency order was correctness.

Although the court found the arbitration board erred in concluding the Act did not permit orders with financial consequences, it upheld the board's factual finding that the specific measure taken was not 'reasonably necessary' to respond to the outbreak.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that upheld the termination of a registered nurse for stealing narcotics from the respondent hospital.

The nurse suffered from a drug addiction.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable because he failed to properly consider whether the hospital engaged in indirect discrimination by terminating the nurse rather than accommodating her disability.

The arbitrator improperly equated the nurse's guilty plea to criminal theft with voluntary behaviour in the human rights context, applying a higher standard of causation than required.

The court set aside the arbitration award and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator to determine the issue of indirect discrimination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board that summarily dismissed her complaint against her union for failing in its duty of fair representation.

The applicant had previously settled a grievance regarding her termination, but subsequently complained about the union's representation.

The Divisional Court held that the Board was entitled to dismiss the complaint summarily without a hearing, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decision was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

In an interim decision during a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in a police traffic stop, the Tribunal ruled on several procedural and disclosure issues.

The Tribunal allowed amendments to the application, bifurcated the hearing, and denied a media request to record the proceedings.

On disclosure, the Tribunal ordered the production of certain police procedures and records check policies, but denied requests for note-taking and traffic stop policies.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' claim that records of a third-party police complaint were protected by statutory privilege under the Police Services Act, finding that HRTO proceedings are not 'civil proceedings' and fall within the 'law enforcement' exception to the secrecy provisions.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application alleging discrimination in the family medicine residency matching process.

The Tribunal denied reconsideration of the direct discrimination and age discrimination claims, finding no breach of procedural fairness or determinative new evidence.

However, the Tribunal granted reconsideration in part, allowing the application to proceed solely with respect to the applicant's proposed amendments alleging systemic discrimination, as the original decision had failed to address those specific allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging breach of a settlement agreement.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment and that the matter be held in abeyance, as the respondent had begun making scheduled payments toward the settlement amount.

The Tribunal granted the request, cancelled the hearing, and placed the application in abeyance until December 31, 2013, with conditions for reactivation if the respondent failed to complete the payments.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of race by police officers during a traffic stop, sought disclosure of records of prior race-based complaints against the respondent officers.

The Tribunal reviewed five responsive records produced by the police service.

Applying the test for similar fact evidence, the Tribunal ordered the disclosure of two records that were temporally proximate or involved similar allegations, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Tribunal declined to order disclosure of three older, unsubstantiated complaints that lacked sufficient similarity to the allegations in the application, finding their prejudicial effect outweighed any limited probative value.

The applicant, alleging racial profiling during a traffic stop, brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding seeking further disclosure and particulars from the respondent police services and officers.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of prior race-based complaints against the involved officers to the Tribunal for vetting, as well as documents relating to the TAVIS initiative and Project Charter.

The Tribunal denied the request for documents from the internal Police Services Act investigation, finding them not arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also permitted the respondents to call an additional witness identified late, finding no substantial prejudice.