FTR Now

Staffing in the fire sector is quickly becoming an emerging topic. Whether it is the minimum staffing provision in a Collective Agreement or the minimum number of firefighters per pumper, both associations and municipalities have been raising these issues at bargaining and interest arbitration. A recent significant case in the fire sector provides some much needed clarity for municipalities. For the first time that we are aware of, an Arbitration Board has decreased a minimum staffing clause.

FTR Now

On November 15, 2018, the Ontario government introduced Bill 57, Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, 2018 (Bill 57), omnibus legislation giving effect to initiatives found in its 2018 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review. If passed, Schedule 18 of Bill 57 will amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 (FPPA) to, among other things, address collective bargaining and interest arbitration in the sector, and enhance protections for volunteer firefighters engaged in “two hatting.”

FTR Now

On March 10, 2011, a private member’s motion calling upon the Ontario government to introduce legislation allowing for the mandatory retirement of firefighters involved in fire suppression duties at age 60 was passed in the Legislature. While there is no indication at this time as to whether the government will propose such legislation, the motion…

FTR Now

On November 8, 2010, Arbitrator Chauvin issued a significant award which confirmed a fire department’s right to manage its operations by determining staffing levels. Arbitrator Chauvin also concluded that the statutory freeze imposed by the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 (“FPPA“) preserved this right and permitted the City to make changes to service levels…

FTR Now

In an important decision issued December 18, 2008, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has upheld a provision in a Collective Agreement which requires mandatory retirement at age 60 for firefighters. In the City of London decision, Adjudicator David A. Wright found that while the provision was prima facie discriminatory, it could be reasonably justified…