William Richard Gale

In an arbitration regarding the discharge of a claims adjudicator for alleged fraud, the employer sought to introduce a recorded statement from a co-conspirator without calling the maker as a witness.

The union objected on the grounds of hearsay.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled the statement inadmissible, finding it was neither necessary, as the maker was available to testify, nor reliable, as it was a repudiated confession from an interested party.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff one year's salary for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had found the plaintiff's employment contract, which limited notice to three months, unenforceable due to misrepresentations by the defendants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of wrongful dismissal but overturned the finding that the contract was unenforceable, concluding there was no evidence to support the claims of misrepresentation regarding the plaintiff's job description or a failure to invest by the defendants.

The Court varied the judgment, limiting the plaintiff's damages to the three months' salary stipulated in the employment contract.

The respondent was employed by the appellant for 16 years under a series of one-year contracts.

When her employment was terminated without cause, the appellant offered only the minimum statutory notice, arguing she was on a fixed-term contract or, alternatively, that the contract limited her to statutory notice.

The trial judge found she was an indefinite-term employee entitled to reasonable notice, set at 16 months but reduced to 12 months for failure to mitigate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal and the employee's cross-appeal, holding that the contract lacked the unequivocal language required to establish a fixed term or to rebut the common law presumption of reasonable notice.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and reprisal, the Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence regarding the respondents' treatment of other former employees, as well as evidence challenging the academic credentials of one of the personal respondents.

The Board of Inquiry ruled both types of evidence inadmissible.

The proposed similar fact evidence lacked a nexus to the material facts in dispute, and the academic credentials of the respondent were irrelevant to his ability to assess the complainants' performance.

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy and reprisal, the respondents objected to the admissibility of two types of evidence proposed by the Commission.

The Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence regarding the respondents' treatment of other former employees, and evidence challenging the academic credentials of one of the personal respondents.

The Board of Inquiry upheld the respondents' objections, ruling that both types of evidence were irrelevant to the material facts in dispute.

The similar fact evidence lacked sufficient similarity and nexus to the complaints, while the academic credentials evidence was collateral and went only to credibility.

The Board of Inquiry heard two pre-hearing motions in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents sought an adjournment because a personal respondent was required to travel to a conference, which the Board denied as it would cause undue delay and disrupt the proceedings.

The Commission sought disclosure of the personal respondent's qualifications and certificates, arguing they were relevant to his assessment of the complainants' competence, which led to their termination.

The Board granted the disclosure motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the bona fides of the termination assessment.

The respondents requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates because the personal respondent was required to travel to a conference.

The Commission requested disclosure of the personal respondent's qualifications and certificates, arguing they were relevant to his assessment of the complainants' competence, which was the stated reason for their termination.

The Board of Inquiry denied the adjournment request, finding it would be too disruptive and that the reasons provided were insufficient.

The Board granted the disclosure motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the bona fides of the respondents' assessment of the complainants' work performance.

In an application for certification, the union and employer agreed on a bargaining unit description that excluded 'office and clerical staff'.

The sole remaining issue was whether receptionists fell within this exclusion.

The Board found that while receptionists shared some community of interest with bargaining unit employees, their duties were primarily administrative and clerical in nature, involving the collection of information that flowed to the accounting staff.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the receptionists fell within the office and clerical exclusion and were excluded from the bargaining unit.

A final certificate was issued.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the parties had reached a binding oral settlement during a meeting with a Board Officer.

The applicant argued that the settlement was only tentative and that his former counsel lacked authority to bind him without his final approval of the written documents.

The Board found that a final oral settlement had been reached and that the applicant's former counsel had ostensible authority to bind him.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint.