Grievance Procedure — Ontario Employment Law

W. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Employee Jurisdiction: GPRA Section 236

This is an interlocutory or jurisdictional motion concerning whether the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction over workplace accommodation claims by federal public service employees. The court analyzed section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, determining that the exclusive grievance process ousts court jurisdiction for disputes related to terms and conditions of employment. The court also addressed constitutional challenges regarding division of powers and Charter equality rights, finding that employment status is not an enumerated or analogous ground under section 15(1) of the Charter.

W. v. D. et al.

W. v. D.: Amending Pleadings in Employment Defamation

This is a procedural ruling regarding a plaintiff's motion to amend a Statement of Claim in an action against an employer for defamation and improper disciplinary actions. The court addressed whether to allow amendments to add parties and provide particulars for the defamation claim, and whether the claim was barred by limitation periods or the grievance process.

H. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

FPSLRA Jurisdiction: Grievability of LTD Misconduct

This is a procedural ruling on jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss claims in an employment dispute involving federal public sector employees. The court addressed whether employer misconduct regarding long-term disability benefits constitutes a grievable matter under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) or if the court retains jurisdiction despite section 236 ousting civil actions for employment disputes.

J. v. Canada School of Public Service et al.

FPSLRA Bar: Negligence/Defamation Claims Dismissed

This is a procedural and jurisdictional ruling in a federal public sector employment dispute where the plaintiff sued for negligence, defamation, and invasion of privacy. The court determined that the negligence and defamation claims were barred under s. 236 of the FPSLRA as they arose from the essential character of the employment relationship, while upholding jurisdiction for the privacy torts. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend their statement of claim to focus on the actionable privacy torts.

T. et al v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al.

RCMP Harassment Claim: Grievance Process Exclusivity

This is an interlocutory proceeding addressing whether the court should exercise jurisdiction over an RCMP employee's claims of workplace harassment and psychological injuries, or defer to the RCMP's internal grievance process. The court determined that the grievance process under the RCMP Act is comprehensive and exclusive, declining to intervene. Additionally, the court struck the plaintiff's spouse's derivative claims under the Family Law Act as untenable and dismissed the main claims as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Essar Steel Algoma Inc. (Re)

CCAA: Grievance Procedure & Collective Agreements

This is a motion to the Court of Appeal for a stay of a motion judge's order pending a motion for leave to appeal concerning a grievance claims procedure. The moving party was a union representing hourly employees, and the responding parties were the employer companies undergoing restructuring. The motion judge ordered a summary process with condensed timelines to resolve thousands of outstanding employee grievances. The Court of Appeal dismissed the union's motion because it failed to meet the legal test for a stay. The Court found there was no reasonable prospect leave to appeal would be granted, no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the employers.

O. v. Attorney-General of Canada

O. v. AG Canada: Armed Forces Grievance Exhaustion

This is a procedural ruling in an action brought by a Canadian Armed Forces officer alleging defamation and improper removal from command. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was premature and constituted an abuse of process because the grievance process under the National Defence Act had not been exhausted. The court stayed the action pending the determination of entitlement under the Act.

C. v. Government of Canada

Workplace Harassment: Court Jurisdiction vs PSLRA Grievance

This is a costs ruling following a successful motion to strike a Statement of Claim by a federal government employee alleging workplace harassment and retaliation. The court determined that the comprehensive statutory scheme under the Public Service Labour Relations Act precluded court jurisdiction, requiring the plaintiff to pursue grievance procedures instead. The claim was struck, and the defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

P. v. Canada (A.G.)

This is a jurisdictional ruling concerning whether a negligence claim by a federal public service employee against a co-worker falls within the exclusive grievance procedure of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The court upheld its jurisdiction, finding that the claim for damages arising from lost security clearance constituted a distinct tort action rather than a dispute over terms and conditions of employment.

O’Loan v. R.

Employment Jurisdiction Dispute: Tort Claims and Collective Agreement

A merits decision involving a dispute over whether the court has jurisdiction to hear claims of conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and slander alleged by an employee against co-workers. The plaintiff argued the claims were outside the scope of the collective agreement, while the defendants contended they fell under grievance procedures. The court must determine if the essential character of the dispute falls within the collective agreement.

M. v. Canada (Attorney General)

M. v Canada: RCMP Harassment & Grievance Process

This is a procedural ruling on a motion to strike, addressing whether the statutory grievance process under the RCMP Act precludes court jurisdiction for harassment and Charter breach claims. The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that while the grievance process lacked mechanisms for credibility assessments, the claim was not plain and obvious to fail.

S. v. National Film Board of Canada

S. v. National Film Board: Court Jurisdiction Upheld

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing an action for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a probationary employee in a managerial position, brought an action raising whistle-blowing allegations after her termination. The defendant employer moved to dismiss the action three years later on the basis that the grievance procedure under the Public Service Staff Relations Act was the appropriate forum. The motion judge dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction and it would be a miscarriage of justice to leave the plaintiff without a remedy since it was too late to grieve.

T. v. Lemerz Canada Inc.

Workplace Discrimination Case: Harassment Based on Race and Origin

A workplace discrimination case involving harassment based on race, colour, and place of origin. The case also addresses the definition of employer and grievance procedures in employment law.

B. v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Post-Strike Retaliation Case: Grievance Procedure Bars Claims

A merits decision involving a plaintiff who alleged harassment and discriminatory conduct by union members and representatives during and after a strike. The court ruled that the grievance procedure under the collective agreement barred the plaintiff's claims, citing exclusive jurisdiction and statutory fairness concerns.

George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Union Grievance Jurisdiction: George Brown College v. OPSEU

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Divisional Court decision granting an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's award. The parties were George Brown College and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. The arbitrator had ruled that the union could initiate teacher workload complaints under the collective agreement, but the Divisional Court quashed the award, finding the agreement only gave that right to individual teachers. The Court of Appeal dismissed the union's appeal. The court held that the arbitrator's decision was patently unreasonable because the collective agreement clearly specified that only individual teachers were allowed to initiate complaints to the workload resolution arbitrator.

S. v. H.

Grievance Process and Arbitration in University Employment Dispute

A merits decision involving a dispute over whether a grievance process under a university-faculty association agreement constitutes arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991. The case also examines whether the issuance of summonses by a Grievance Review Panel complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly sections 7 and 8.

Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Post Corp.

A judicial review application concerning a labour arbitration decision regarding the arbitrator's jurisdiction and the interpretation of a collective agreement. The court examined whether the arbitrator was functus officio, the scope of informal grievance procedures under the BAR agreement, and whether the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was patently unreasonable.

Westdale Construction Co. v. R. (Dist. Ct.)

Wrongful Dismissal: Grievance Process and Landlord Possession Rights

A wrongful dismissal case involving a superintendent who alleges termination due to union activities, with a grievance pending before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The landlord sought possession of the caretaker’s apartment after the superintendent’s employment was terminated, and the court ruled that the grievance process does not preclude the landlord from applying for possession if statutory notice requirements are met.

M. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board

Labour Relations: Court Jurisdiction vs. Collective Agreement

This is a procedural ruling by the Court of Appeal for Ontario regarding the jurisdiction of courts versus collective agreement grievance procedures in a teacher's employment dispute. The court held that the collective agreement provided exclusive mechanisms for resolving disputes over resignation or dismissal, thereby precluding court jurisdiction to determine if the resignation was caused by duress.

Re Attorney-General for Ontario and K. et al.

Employment Contract Dispute: Statutory Grievance Rights vs. Collective Agreement Time-Limits

A merits decision involving a dispute over whether a statutory right to grieve a dismissal under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972 (Ont.) overrides time-limit provisions in a collective agreement. The Grievance Settlement Board held that the statutory right could not be limited by the agreement, and the application was dismissed with costs.