Simon Blackstone

The moving party sought an extension of time of approximately 18 months to apply for judicial review of a labour arbitration award regarding compensation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the explanation for the delay weak, doubtful apparent grounds for relief given the union's refusal to pursue judicial review, and substantial prejudice to the respondents due to the lengthy delay and the importance of finality in labour relations.

Five grievors were terminated by Metrolinx for engaging in workplace sexual harassment contrary to the employer's policy.

The union grieved the terminations.

Following an earlier arbitration award that was quashed by the Divisional Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal, the matter was remitted to a new arbitrator.

Proceeding via mediation-arbitration under section 50 of the Labour Relations Act, the arbitrator found the grievors' conduct egregious and deserving of significant discipline.

However, considering their apologies, regret, and seniority, the arbitrator concluded termination was excessive and ordered reinstatement with four- and five-week suspensions substituted.

Following a Divisional Court decision quashing a previous arbitrator's ruling and remitting the matter back to the Grievance Settlement Board, a dispute arose regarding scheduling.

The employer sought to condition the scheduling of new dates on the completion of any potential appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The union argued for scheduling dates in the normal course, with adjournment requests to be handled later if necessary.

The arbitrator agreed with the union and directed that dates be scheduled in the normal fashion.

In an ongoing arbitration regarding the reasonableness of the Employer's Fitness for Duty Policy following the legalization of cannabis, the Union sought production of a Senior Management Team briefing note and related email exchanges.

The Employer claimed these documents were exempt from disclosure based on solicitor-client privilege.

The Arbitrator found that the briefing note, co-authored by in-house legal counsel, and the email exchanges, which sought legal advice regarding a potential ban on recreational cannabis use, were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Arbitrator also rejected the Union's argument that the Employer had waived privilege by failing to identify the documents earlier in the proceedings.

The documents were ordered not to be produced.

In a policy grievance challenging the employer's absolute prohibition on off-duty cannabis use for safety-sensitive positions, the union sought an order limiting the employer's evidence due to an alleged failure to provide full particulars.

The arbitrator declined to make an order limiting evidence at this stage, noting the union could object at the hearing.

The arbitrator directed the employer to provide written submissions on why it should not be ordered to file its expert report before the union.

The arbitrator also ordered the employer to produce drafts of the impugned policy provisions, finding them arguably relevant to the policy's reasonableness, subject to any claim of solicitor-client privilege.

The Union filed policy and individual grievances challenging the Employer's amended Fitness for Duty Policy, which prohibited all recreational use of cannabis for employees in safety-sensitive positions and required disclosure of medical cannabis prescriptions.

In an interim decision, the arbitrator addressed the order of proceeding and production of medical records.

The arbitrator directed the Union to proceed first, as it bore the legal onus to establish its allegations of unreasonableness and discrimination, and there was no compelling reason to depart from the usual order.

Regarding production, the arbitrator ordered third-party health providers to disclose the grievors' files to Union counsel first to vet for arguably relevant material relating to cannabis use, with the Employer to bear the costs of disclosure from its occupational health management providers.

The applicant unions sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondent employers from enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies pending the outcome of labour arbitrations.

The court dismissed the Sinai application on the basis that the labour arbitration process provided an adequate alternative remedy, precluding the exercise of the court's residual jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the TTC application on the merits of the injunction test, finding that the loss of employment or income did not constitute irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the employer's obligation to protect public health and workplace safety.

The Union sought an order to consolidate two policy grievances and five individual grievances regarding the Employer's Fitness for Duty Policy, specifically its provisions on cannabis use and impairment testing.

The Employer opposed the consolidation, arguing the grievances raised distinct issues.

The Arbitrator found that while there was a continuum of issues, hearing all grievances together would be unwieldy.

The Arbitrator directed that the prohibition policy grievance and three related individual grievances be heard together, while the impairment testing policy grievance and a related individual grievance be heard separately.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in boundary violations with a female student.

Despite previous warnings and a prior disciplinary finding for similar conduct, the Member engaged in unwanted conversations, invaded the student's personal space, and shared inappropriate personal details.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of coursework on professional boundaries and classroom management.

The applicant, a former teacher, alleged discrimination and reprisal by his union, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, and several of its officers.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations related to unfair representation and failure to file grievances, but lacked any factual foundation connecting the union's actions to a Code-protected ground.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed as the applicant had not asserted a Code right.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding a complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation concerning overtime grievances.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Board did not record the proceedings and proceeded by way of consultation rather than a full hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's substantive decisions and remedial orders were reasonable.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for sending hundreds of inappropriate text messages to two students, including late at night and during class time.

Despite requests from parents to stop, the Member continued the communications.

The Member also met one of the students, provided him with alcohol, and watched him consume it and smoke marijuana before he left by boat.

The Member pled guilty to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a nine-month suspension of her teaching certificate, and the completion of a course on appropriate boundaries.

The Committee also ordered the publication of the Member's name in the College's official publication, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in inappropriate electronic communications with two students via Facebook and text messages.

The communications blurred professional boundaries, involved inappropriate language, and included the Member acting on behalf of a student without permission.

The Member pleaded guilty to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, remedial coursework on professional ethics, and publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The union grieved the employer's unilateral decision to end a long-standing policy allowing employees and retirees to be occasionally accompanied by one non-paying guest on GO Transit.

The union argued the collective agreement's reference to 'transportation services' was ambiguous and should be interpreted in light of past practice, or alternatively, that the employer was estopped from changing the policy until the agreement expired.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the collective agreement language unambiguously applied only to the cardholders themselves.

The Board also held that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply because the benefit was not part of standard compensation for work performed and its 'occasional' nature was too imprecise to enforce.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The College advised that it did not intend to pursue the case because the member had been acquitted of the same allegations in another proceeding outside the College.

With the consent of the parties, the Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding the withdrawal to be reasonable, appropriate, and in the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who removed two work benches and an arc welder from her school without authorization.

When the school board investigated the missing welder, the member asked a colleague to provide false information to an investigator and sent an accusatory text message when the colleague refused.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, the completion of an ethics course, and publication of the decision with the member's name.

The Committee found that publication with the member's name was necessary for specific and general deterrence, despite her prior unblemished record.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after engaging in repeated unwanted contact with a colleague over 18 months, which culminated in a criminal conviction for harassment.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and the completion of a boundaries course.

The Committee also ordered the publication of the member's name in the College's official publication, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and transparency given the serious nature of the misconduct.

The Member, a teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with a Grade 8 female student.

The relationship involved out-of-school activities such as going for coffee, attending a movie, driving the student in his vehicle, and hugging, though there was no sexual contact.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including psychological or emotional abuse and failing to maintain professional standards.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, the successful completion of a boundary violations course, and publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The Committee declined to order a suspension, noting the Member had already served a 20-day suspension imposed by his school board and had successfully rehabilitated himself.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of parts of a bus services contract between the applicant and a municipality.

The adjudicator found that the third party exemption under s. 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply because the information was mutually generated through negotiation, rather than supplied by the applicant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and that the applicant failed to establish that the inferred disclosure or immutability exceptions applied.

The Member, a Learning Co-ordinator for a regional athletic association, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being criminally convicted of defrauding his school board of over $800,000 over a ten-year period.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, ordering the immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate.

Despite the Member's request to withhold his name from publication, the Committee ordered publication with his name, citing the egregious nature of the breach of trust and the need for transparency and general deterrence.