Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Allan 11-11-21
INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: THECORPORATIONOFTHECOUNTYOFFRONTENAC (the"Employer") and ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION,LOCAL462 (the"Union") GrievanceofGREGORYALLANdatedDecember10,2011 (#2010-0462-0003) SOLEARBITRATOR:JohnStout APPEARANCES: FORTHEEMPLOYER: MarkMason,Counsel FORTHEUNION: RichardBlair,Counsel HEARINGHELDINKINGSTON,ONTARIOONNOVEMBER8,2011 AWARD [1]ThiscasearisesfromthedismissalofGregAllan(the"Grievor"),a PrimaryCareParamedic,fromhisemploymentbytheEmployer.TheEmployer reliesontheAmbulanceActR.S.O.1990,chapterA.19andinparticular subsection6(1)(d)ofRegulation257/00oftheAmbulanceAct(the"Regulation") tojustifytheGrievor'sdismissal. [2]Thefactsinthiscasewerelargelynotindispute. [3]TheEmployeristhelicencediandambulanceserviceproviderforthe geographicareaoftheCountyofFrontenac.TheEmployerbecameultimately responsibleforlandambulanceserviceswithinitsboundariesonorabout January1,2001whenresponsibilityforlandambulanceserviceswas downloadedfromtheProvincialGovernmenttoUpperTierMunicipalities.Atthat timetheEmployerelectedtoprovidelandambulanceservicesthroughcontracts withthree(3)existingserviceproviders,oneofwhomwastheHotelDieu Hospital. [4]EffectiveJanuary1,2004,theEmployerbegantoprovidetheland ambulanceserviceswithinitsboundariesviadirectdelivery.Throughaprocess thatwasultimatelyagreeduponbytheEmployerandtheUnion,who representedtheparamedicswhiletheywereemployedbyHotelDieuHospital, thepartiesrecognizedthistransitionasasaleofbusinesssuchthatthe Employerhiredallemployees. [5]ThisishowtheGrievorcametobeemployedbytheEmployerasa paramedic. [6]OnoraboutAugust14,2010,theGrievorwascaughtspeedingwhileoff dutyandissuedaspeedingticket. [7]ThroughaseriesofeventsbeyondthecontroloftheEmployer,the Grievor'slicencewasultimatelysuspendedonan"administrative"basisbecause hisoutstandingspeedingtickethadnotbeenpaid. [8]ItwastheGrievor'sevidencethathedidnotinfactreceivenotificationthat ifhisspeedingticketwasnotpaid,itwouldresultintheadministrative suspensionofhisdriver'slicence.Infact,theGrievordidnotbecomeawareof hislicencebeingsuspendedonNovember23,2010,untilhereceivedanoticeby mailonNovember30,2010. [9]Uponreceivingthenotice,theGrievortookallappropriatestepstopaythe necessaryfineandhavehislicencereinstated. [10]Inaddition,theGrievorwasforthcominginadvisingtheEmployerofthe sequenceofeventsoutlinedaboveandthefactthathislicencehadinfactbeen suspendedforaperiodoftime,Thereisnoevidenceofbadfaithconductbythe Grievor. [11]AfterinformingtheEmployerofthelicencesuspension,theGrievorwas initiallyplacedonanunpaidleaveofabsence,Onceitwasdeterminedthatthe Grievor'slicencehadbeenreinstated,theGrievorwasplacedonapaid suspensionwhiletheEmployercompleteditsinvestigationanddeterminedits courseofaction, [12]TheGrievor'semploymentwiththeEmployerwasterminatedon December10,2010.TheUnionfiledagrievanceonbehalfoftheGrievoronthat samedate. [13]Theevidenceindicatesthat,exceptforthelicencesuspension,the Grievorwasaqualifiedparamedic.Additionally,thereisnoevidencethatthe Grievorreceivedanydemeritspointsforhisspeedinginfraction. [14]Attheheartofthedisputeissection6(1)(d)ofRegulation257/00tothe AmbulanceAct.Section6oftheRegulationfallsunderPartIIIoftheRegulation, whichistitled"QualificationsofEmergencyMedicalAttendantsandParamedics". Section6(1)(d)providesasfollows: Section6(1)Anemergencymedicalattendantandparamedic employed,orengagedasavolunteer,inalandambulanceservice shall, (d)havemaintained,duringthetwoyearsimmediatelypriortothe dateheorshecommencedemployment,andhavecontinuedto maintainduringhisorheremploymentavaliddriver'slicenceunder theHighwayTrafficAct. [15]ItwastheEmployer'sposition,basedonitsresearchandunderstanding oftheprovisioninquestion,thatitwasnolongerentitledtocontinuetoemploy theGrievorasaparamedicpursuanttoSection6oftheRegulation. [16]ItisapparentthatatalltimestheEmployerwasactingingoodfaithandin accordancewithwhatitunderstoodtobeitslegislativeandregulatory requirementsandbasedontheinformationthatithadavailabletoitatthetime andthedirectionwhichitreceivedfromofficialsintheMinistryofHealthand Long-TermCare. [17]Unfortunately,thisappearstobeoneofthosesituationswhere, notwithstandingthefactthateveryoneactedingoodfaithandwithfulldisclosure andexplanationofthebasisfortheiractionsanddecisions,theunfortunateresult wastheterminationoftheGrievor'semploymentwhentheEmployerdetermined thattherewerenopositionsoutsideofbeingaparamedicthatwereavailableand forwhichtheGrievorwasqualified. [18]Furthermore,theEmployerhadconcernsrespectingpotentialliabilityin theeventthatitcontinuedtoemploytheGrievorarisingfromprovisionsfoundin sections11and23oftheAmbulanceAct.Therelevantprovisionsaresetout below: 11(1)-IfanoperatorhascontravenedastandardorrequirementofthisActortheregulationsandthecontraventionwouldconstitutea failuretomeetthecertificationcriteriareferredtoinsubsection8(5), theDirectormay, (a)ordertheoperatortoremedythecontraventionwithinthe timeframespecifiedintheorder; (b)subjecttosection14,ordertheoperatortocompletethe certificationprocessreferredtoinsubsection8(2)withinthe timeframespecifiedintheorder (c)makebothordersreferredtoinclauses(a)and(b);or (d)makesuchordersasmaybeprescribedbyregulation 11(3)-Ifanoperatorisorderedtocompletethecertificationprocessunderclause(1)(b)andfailstosuccessfullycompletethecertification processwithinthetimeframespecified,thecertifyingauthorityshall, byorder,revoketheoperator'scertificate. Section23(4)"Anindividualwhoisconvictedofanoffenceunderthis sectionisliable(a)forafirstoffence,toafineofnotmorethan $25,000ortoimprisonmentforatermofnotmorethan12months,or both;and(b)forasubsequentoffence,toafineofnotmorethan $50,000ortoimprisonmentforatermofnotmorethan12monthsor both Section23(5)-Same,corporation-Acorporationthatisconvictedof anoffenceunderthissectionisliabletoafineofnotmorethan $50,000forafirstoffenceandtoafineofnotmorethan$200,000for asubsequentoffence. [19]TheEmployerarguesthattheyhadjustcausetoterminatetheGrievor. TheEmployerpointstotheprovisionsoftheAmbulanceActandtheRegulation, emphasizingthatthepotentialconsequencesforaviolationoftheprovisionsis clearontheirfaceandmustbestrictlyinterpreted. [20]TheUnionarguesagainstsuchastrictinterpretation.Instead,theUnion argues,basedonacceptedinterpretativeprinciples,thattheprovisionsofthe AmbulanceActandRegulationshouldbereadpurposivelywithaviewto providingacontextualapproach. DECISION [21]Forthereasonsthatfollow,Iconcludethatthegrievanceshouldbe allowedandtheGrievoristobereinstatedinhispositionasaparamedic. [22]TheSupremeCourtofCanadahasrepeatedlyendorsedthemodern approacharticulatedbyE.A.DdedgerinTheConstructionofStatutes(Toronto: Butterworths,1974),at67,inRuthSullivan,SullivanontheConstructionof Statutes,5thed.(Markham:LexisNexisCanadaInc.2008)at1,asthepreferred methodofstatutoryinterpretation: Todaythereisonlyoneprincipleorapproach,namely,thewordsof anActaretobereadintheirentirecontext,intheirgrammaticaland ordinarysenseharmoniouslywiththeschemeoftheAct,theobject oftheAct,andtheintentionofParliament. Seeforexample,ReRizzo&RizzoShoesLtd.,[1998]1S.C.R.27,atpara.21; BellExpressVuLimitedPartnershipv.Rex,[2002]2S.C.R.559,atpara.26. [23]Thisapproachalsogovernstheinterpretationofaregulation.Itrequires anexaminationofthe"languageoftheprovision,thecontextinwhichthe languageisusedandthepurposeofthelegislationorstatutoryschemeinwhich thelanguageisfound,seeOntario(MinistryofLabour)v.Sheehan'sTruck CentreInc.2011ONCA645. [24]TheAmbulanceActislegislationthatisdesignedtoensurethatthe citizensofOntarioareprovidedwithsafeandefficientambulanceservices. 6 [25]Themodernmethodofstatutoryinterpretationrequiresthatthewordsof theRegulationbeinterpretedintheirentirecontextinwhichtheyareusedandin accordancewiththeirgrammaticalandordinarysensehavingregardtothe purposesoftheAmbulanceActandtheRegulationasawhole. [26]Itisalsoawell-establishedprincipleofstatutoryinterpretationthatthe legislaturedoesnotintendtoproduceabsurdconsequences.Aninterpretation canbeconsideredabsurdifitleadstoridiculousorfrivolousconsequences,ifit isextremelyunreasonableorinequitable,ifitisillogicalorincoherent,orifitis incompatiblewithotherprovisionsorwiththelegislativeobjectofthelegislative enactment,seeReRizzo&RizzoShoesInc.,supraatpara.27. [27]Section6oftheRegulationsetsoutcertaincriteriaforpersonsemployed orengagedasavolunteeremergencymedicalattendantorparamedic.The criteriaareclearlyrelatedtoensuringthatapersonemployedorengagedasan emergencymedicalattendantorparamedicisqualifiedtoperformthosejobs safely. [28]TheEmployer'sinterpretationandastrictreadingofsection6(1)(d)leads totheabsurdresultthattheGrievorisnolongerqualifiedandprohibitedfrom beingengagedoremployedasaparamedicfortwoyearsbecauseheforgotto payaspeedingticket.Similarly,theEmployer'sinterpretationwouldalsoleadto theabsurdresultthatapersonwhohastheirdriver'slicenceinvalidatedfor failingtopaytheirlicencefeeuponrenewalwouldnolongerbequalifiedtobea paramedicoremergencymedicalattendantfortwoyears. [29]Inmyview,thelegislatures'intentcannotreasonablybeinterpretedto prohibitthosepersonswhoareotherwisequalifiedfrombeingemployedasa paramedicduetobeingabsentmindedandnotpayingafeeorfine. [30]Thisabsurdresultbecomesevenmoreevidentwhenexaminedinlightof subsection6(1)(c),whichprovides: subjecttosubsection(2),nothavereceived,duringtheyear immediatelypriortothedateheorshecommencedemployment,six ormoredemeritpointsrecordedonhisorherrecordbytheRegistrar ofMotorVehiclesundertheHighwayTrafficAct; Subsection(2)provides: Clause(1)(c)doesnotapplytoapersonwho, (a)waspreviouslyemployedasanemergencymedicalattendantor paramedic; (b)receivedsixormoredemeritpointsrecordedonhisorherrecordby theRegistrarofMotorvehiclesundertheHighwayTrafficActduring hisorherpreviousemployment;and (c)losthisorheremploymentbecauseofafailuretomeetthe requirementsofparagraph7ofsection6ofOntarioRegulation501/97 asthatparagraphreadimmediatelybeforethedaysection1ofOntario Regulation520199cameintoforce. [31]TheEmployer'sinterpretation,whenreadtogetherwithsubsection6(1)(c) and6(2)resultsinagreaterpenaltybeingimposedonthepersonwhofailsto payafineforasingleHighwayTrafficActviolation(prohibitionfrombeinga paramedicfortwoyears)thanapersonwhohashadseveralHighwayTrafficAct violationsresultinginsixormoredemeritpoints.Sucharesultisinmyview extremelyunreasonableandinequitable;giventhatthepurposeandobjectiveof theAmbulanceActandtheRegulationisprovidesafeandefficientambulance services. [32]Inthesecircumstances,IconcludethattheprovisionsoftheRegulationdo notdisqualifytheGrieverfromemployment.Therefore,despiteactingingood faith,theEmployerdidnothavejustcausetoterminatetheGriever.Accordingly, IallowthegrievanceandorderthattheGrievorbereinstatedtohispositionasa paramedicassoonaspossible. [33]Iremainseizedtoaddressanyissuesarisingfromthisawardandorany issuearisingfromtheGrievor'sreinstatement. DatedatToronto,Ontariothis21stdayofNovember2011. JS"t-Arbitrator