Susan Munn

The applicant brought a motion to supplement the record of proceedings for her judicial review application with almost 5,000 pages of additional documents.

She argued these documents were 'documentary evidence filed with the tribunal' under s. 20(d) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because she had sent them to the tribunal's registrar and executive chairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that merely sending documents to tribunal officials or providing them during disclosure does not make them evidence in a hearing.

The applicant failed to meet the Keeprite test for supplementing the record on judicial review.

A case management conference was held in an application for judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The self-represented applicant sought to introduce over 4,700 pages of additional materials that were not included in the tribunal's official record of proceedings.

The court directed that the issue of the proper record be determined at a subsequent motion, outlining the narrow exceptions under which new evidence may be admitted on judicial review.

The court also provided directions regarding the applicant's proposed notice of constitutional question.

A case management conference was held to schedule an application for judicial review of several Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The court scheduled the hearing for January 13, 2021, dismissed the application against personal respondents on consent, and set deadlines for the service and filing of the Record of Proceedings, factums, and other materials using Caselines.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued an addendum to a preliminary decision following a teleconference with the parties.

The Board directed that the upcoming hearing proceed via teleconference, with the initial stage involving mediation.

If mediation proves unsuccessful, the parties are directed to address the employer's preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint.

The Board also set deadlines for the exchange of documents and authorities.

In a grievance arbitration, the union sought production of various documents relating to the grievor's accommodation and discipline.

The parties resolved several production requests but disputed three.

Applying the West Park Hospital factors, the Arbitrator ordered the employer to produce documents relating to two individuals whose involvement was arguably relevant.

However, the Arbitrator denied the request for documents from a third individual, finding that the burden of searching archived records was disproportionate to her limited involvement of merely being blind-copied on an email.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for allegedly using excessive force by directing an inmate's head into a steel door frame and failing to properly document the incident.

The union grieved the termination and the forfeiture of unused vacation credits.

The arbitrator reviewed video evidence and expert testimony, concluding that the grievor intentionally pushed the compliant inmate into the door frame, constituting an excessive use of force.

The arbitrator also found the grievor failed to accurately report the incident.

Given the serious breach of trust and the grievor's lack of remorse, the termination was upheld.

The grievance regarding the forfeiture of vacation credits was also dismissed as the employer's actions complied with the collective agreement.

The complainant requested a change of venue for a scheduled mediation session from Toronto to London, Ontario, citing medical reasons and an ongoing WSIB matter.

The employer opposed the request, suggesting a teleconference instead.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the complainant's request, finding that holding the mediation in Toronto would result in unreasonable expense and inconvenience under Practice Note #3.

The Board ordered the mediation to proceed in person in London.

The parties requested rulings on two preliminary issues in a series of grievances.

The employer objected to parts of the union's particulars for three 2017 grievances, arguing they violated grievance procedure privilege, constituted an abuse of process, and improperly relied on similar fact evidence.

The arbitrator upheld the objection based on grievance procedure privilege, striking several paragraphs.

The abuse of process objection was dismissed, as there was no prejudice to the employer.

The objection regarding similar fact evidence was upheld, and the paragraph was struck due to a lack of particulars and the risk of expanding the hearing's scope.

The union's request for further unspecified document production was denied as an impermissible fishing expedition.

The parties proceeded by expedited mediation/arbitration regarding a grievance.

The employer conceded a violation of the collective agreement, leaving only the issue of remedy.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay $350 in damages to each grievor who had an asterisk beside their name and was being medically accommodated.

During a grievance arbitration involving multiple consolidated grievances, the employer requested an order confirming the Board's jurisdiction over human rights issues and directing that all grievances be heard concurrently.

The union opposed the jurisdiction order as unnecessary and argued for consecutive hearings to avoid delaying the original grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to issue the jurisdiction order, finding no active dispute on the matter.

However, the Board ordered that all grievances be heard concurrently due to significant evidentiary overlap.

The Board also permitted union counsel to discuss the grievor's will-say statement with her to prepare for the newly consolidated grievances.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled mediation before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer attended and made submissions.

The Vice-Chair directed that the matter be rescheduled for med/arb and ordered the complainant to provide full written particulars of his complaints at least 60 days prior to the next scheduled date.

The employer reserved the right to seek dismissal if the complainant fails to attend the rescheduled date.

The Union filed 44 grievances alleging that a manager engaged in bullying, harassment, and discrimination, violating the collective agreement and health and safety legislation.

After the Union presented its evidence, the Employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Arbitrator upheld the motion, finding that the Union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The evidence presented, even if assumed to be true, did not demonstrate a course of harassing conduct or any violation of the collective agreement, but rather instances of miscommunication or less than ideal management practices.

The Union filed grievances regarding the calculation of compensating time for Correctional Officers who miss meal breaks while on hospital escort duty.

The Union argued that under the Memorandum of Settlement, officers on a twelve-hour shift missing two meal breaks should receive two hours of compensating time.

The Arbitrator found the language of the Memorandum unambiguous, stating that officers are entitled to one hour of compensating leave 'for the shift' regardless of its length or the number of missed breaks.

The grievances were denied.

The employer requested an adjournment of the hearing because its advisor was ill and unable to attend.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment and directed the parties to contact the Board to arrange further dates.

The Association requested that the Employer produce certain documents and confirm full compliance with its production requests.

The Employer had not confirmed full compliance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to either confirm it had produced all requested documents or file a list of documents it objects to producing, along with reasons, by May 29, 2017.

The union requested the consolidation of additional grievances filed by the grievor with the present grievances, and an order for the employer to produce documents relating to a WDHP complaint and the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the requests, ordering consolidation subject to the union referring the unreferred grievances to arbitration, and ordering the production of the requested documents.

In a dispute over a 10-day suspension, the Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered the employer to produce the contents of a WDHP file, subject to certain redactions.

Following further submissions, the Board directed the employer to provide unredacted copies of the documents, with the condition that the Association restrict access to the formerly redacted portions to its counsel and one designated Association representative.

The union filed a grievance seeking indemnification for the grievor's legal costs incurred in defending a criminal charge of assault against an inmate, of which he was acquitted.

The collective agreement provided for indemnification where an employee is found not guilty 'because of acts done in good faith'.

The employer argued the arbitrator must independently determine if the acts were done in good faith, while the union argued the arbitrator must defer to the criminal court's reasons.

The arbitrator held that the specific language of the collective agreement linked the entitlement to indemnification to the reasons for the criminal court's acquittal.

Since the trial judge explicitly found the grievor acted in good faith, the condition for indemnification was met.

The grievance was allowed.

The complainants, a group of Operational Managers, filed a grievance claiming pay and damages for a period of standby that was cancelled by the employer.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the notice of proposal to file the complaint and the complaint itself were filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limits set out in sections 8 and 10 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against these mandatory time limits, the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Employer brought a motion to consolidate three disputes involving two different complainants (Chiba and Argyropoulos) to be heard together.

The disputes involved allegations of workplace harassment and subsequent discipline.

The Association opposed the motion, arguing the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to consolidate matters already assigned to and commenced before a different Vice-Chair.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to take matters from another seized adjudicator without the parties' consent.

Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Board would decline to consolidate the matters due to limited factual overlap and potential prejudice to the complainant.