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

Avatar photo

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. 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 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.

Avatar photo

Truck News is Canada's leading trucking newspaper - news and information for trucking companies, owner/operators, truck drivers and logistics professionals working in the Canadian trucking industry.

Have your say

This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.


  • if this was a truck driver truck news would have his name all over this article age and were he lived .truck news is run by the big companies.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • What is the status of this ruling? Did this disgusting individual or this pathetic excuse for a union actually seek an appeal?

    I really feel the Arbitrator Loretta Mikus would be investigated for such poor judgement and being out if touch.

  • I wonder how this inspector treated women drivers? I cannot drive but worked with many women drivers and to be honest I wouldn’t be keen on going through a scale with this guy as my inspector.