DAILY NEWS Dec 23, 2013 8:58 AM - 7 comments

Court overrules arbitrator's decision to reinstate MTO officer after pleading guilty to indecent acts

TEXT SIZE bigger text smaller text
By: James Menzies

VINELAND, Ont. -- An MTO transportation enforcement officer who plead guilty to committing indecent acts in public, and told his boss he harboured anger issues towards women, will not be returned to his job despite an earlier ruling in his favour by an arbitrator.

A three-judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court unanimously overturned the arbitrator’s decision, after the initial ruling was sent for judicial review. It’s rare for a judicial review to overturn the ruling of an arbitrator, according to employee law expert Ken Krupat.

Trucknews.com first reported on the case last February. The officer at that time had won a grievance against the MTO, requiring them to give him back his job as an enforcement officer. This after he plead guilty to two charges of committing an indecent act, having been caught masturbating on a trail system near a girls’ school.

He received a conditional discharge and three years’ probation, despite his admission of guilt. However, the decision to allow him to return to work didn’t sit well with Trucknews.com readers or even some of his co-workers.

“(Arbitrator) Loretta Mikus, somehow concluded that the officer would not be impeded from performing his duties, despite that fact that he had been convicted and conditionally discharged of these counts of public indecency,” Krupat wrote in a recent blog. “The grievor had only been with the MTO at the time for approximately two years.”

Krupat said at the time that the arbitrator’s ruling “illustrates the high level of misconduct that unionized employers must demonstrate in order to uphold the dismissal of an employee.”

In its decision to overrule the arbitrator, the Divisional Court panel declared: there was “at least a moderate risk of re-offence”; that the grievor’s conduct would damage the employer’s reputation; that it would be unreasonable to expect the grievor to be able to give credible evidence in court; that there was evidence other employees would be unwilling or reluctant to work with the grievor; that the arbitrator diminished the seriousness of the charges the grievor faced; and that the arbitrator understated the effect on workplace morale that reinstating him would have.

The panel also rebuked the arbitrator, saying “The (Ontario Grievances Settlement) Board unreasonably diminished the Millhaven criteria, erroneously interpreted or ignored relevant evidence, and understated the importance of the grievor’s conduct in the context of his work as a TEO. This led the Board to unreasonably conclude that termination was not appropriate.”

Krupat said there’s still a chance the grievor could appeal the decision, but it’s unlikely he’d succeed.

“While it is generally quite difficult to review an arbitrator’s decision successfully in the labour context, this case demonstrates that whacky decisions can be overturned,” Krupat wrote. “As the Divisional Court concluded, it would be unreasonable for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation to be expected to continue to employ an inspection officer who might, at any time, hand out something other than tickets and fines.

It would now be up to the union to decide whether to try and have this case appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. It seems that the likelihood of success would be quite minimal, given the cogent and detailed reasons of the Divisional Court.” You can read the court ruling here.

Monitor These Topics

Horizontal ruler

Reader Comments

Most recent firstOldest first

concerned citizen

get this out to the public! Make people aware since he does not have a record!

Posted February 24, 2014 10:02 AM

rick thompson

Bravo for the judges lets be real who wants to have this person in authority. Discusting and troubled individual who I would personally have trouble dealing with at an MTO Inspection center as a matter of fact would be extremely troubled even to have him approach me on matters at hand.Feel it is best he not be in that position and or have any dealing with the general public not even a coffee shop. Get Him Help this wont just clear up like a cold.

Posted December 27, 2013 09:23 AM

Lou Smyrlis

Rob: Truck News broke this story and brought it to the attention of the industry, while the other media outlets let it slide by. We did so because we felt the industry had a right to know. And, as you can see, we've stayed on the story, reporting on the most recent developments while competing media have continued to remain silent. Yet somehow you find fault with our efforts?

Posted December 27, 2013 08:32 AM


If you read the first report you would know they did identify him.

Posted December 27, 2013 07:28 AM

Concerned Citizen

Read the court ruling link in the article. His name is in there. And since it was in the Niagara Region, You can deduce that it is more likely he lives in that area. I believe he worked at the Vineland Ontario Scale. (though I could be wrong.) The information is there. Just need to look for it.

Posted December 27, 2013 07:20 AM

Horizontal Ruler

Post A Comment

Note: By submitting your comments you acknowledge that Truck News has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that due to the volume of e-mails we receive, not all comments will be published and those that are published will not be edited. However, all will be carefully read, considered and appreciated.

Your Name (this will appear with your post) *

Email Address (will not be published) *

Comments *

* mandatory fields