April – June 2026

Introduction

This report summarizes three recent decisions affecting the paramedic/EMS sector in Ontario. The decisions span different aspects of EMS labour relations: one interest arbitration setting wages and comprehensive terms of employment, and two grievance arbitrations addressing scheduling policy and classification/seniority issues that are central to day-to-day EMS operations.

 

1. County of Grey — Interest Arbitration

1. The Corporation of the County of Grey v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 250

CanLII Citation: 2026 CanLII 35601 (ON LA)

Date: April 20, 2026

Arbitrator: Sheri Price (Sole Arbitrator)

Statutory Framework: Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 10

Parties and Background

Grey County is an upper-tier municipality operating a paramedic service with approximately 99 full-time and 47 part-time primary care paramedics working out of eight bases. The arbitration was conducted pursuant to an October 2023 Essential Ambulance Service Agreement in which the parties agreed to interest arbitration rather than strike or lockout. The relevant comparators are neighbouring paramedic services: Bruce County, Huron County, the City of Guelph, Simcoe County, Dufferin County, and Perth County. Historically, Grey County paramedics’ wages have ranked second highest among these comparators.

Key Issues

The parties were unable to agree on wages, premiums, hours of work, vacation, benefits, and several other terms for the renewal collective agreement covering January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2025. The principal disputes were:

• Wages: The Union sought 5% per year; the Employer proposed 2.5% in 2024 and 2.28% in 2025.
• Alternate Rate Duty Supervisor premium
• Shift and weekend premiums
• Health and welfare benefits (vision, paramedical, mental health)
• Safety boot allowance
• Introduction of preceptor pay and field training paramedic premium

Decision

The arbitrator awarded the following key terms:

• General wage increase of 3.5% effective January 1, 2024 and 3.5% effective January 1, 2025
• Alternate Rate Duty Supervisor premium increased to $4.00/hr
• Vacation scheduling quotas (increase to 17 paramedics allowed off at one time)
• Shift and weekend shift premium increases to $1.10/hr
• Health and welfare improvements: vision care $450/24 months, orthodontics $2500, paramedical $900, mental health $5000
• Safety boot allowance increased to $350 for full-time employees
• Introduction of preceptor pay letter of understanding

Rationale

The arbitrator considered the statutory criteria under s. 21(2) of the ASCBA and established interest arbitration principles including comparability, demonstrated need, total compensation, incrementalism, and replication. The 3.5% general wage increase maintains Grey County’s historical position relative to its comparator services. The arbitrator rejected the Union’s request for 5% as exceeding the comparator pattern, and rejected the Employer’s position as insufficient to maintain relative standing.

Significance

This is the only interest arbitration in this collection that sets wages and comprehensive terms for paramedics. The 3.5% GWI for both 2024 and 2025 mirrors the rate established across retirement homes and long-term care homes through the SEIU Master Award pattern, suggesting broad sectoral convergence in healthcare wage outcomes notwithstanding the different statutory frameworks. The introduction of preceptor pay reflects the increasing formalisation of training obligations within paramedic services.

 

2. County of Essex EMS — Scheduling Policy Grievance

2. The Corporation of the County of Essex (Essex Windsor EMS) v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2974.2

CanLII Citation: 2026 CanLII 42543 (ON LA)

Date: May 10, 2026

Arbitrator: Derek L. Rogers

Nature: Preliminary award on production and particulars (grievance arbitration)

Parties and Background

Essex Windsor EMS is a municipal paramedic service operated by the Corporation of the County of Essex. CUPE Local 2974.2 represents paramedic employees. On December 5, 2025, CUPE filed a policy grievance concerning changes to the part-time availability policy. Prior to the change, part-time paramedics specified shifts for which they were available. Under the new policy, part-time paramedics specify shifts from which they wish to be exempted, and the Employer decides whether to grant those exemptions.

The principal collective agreement provision at issue is Article 15.02(c), which states that part-time paramedics shall be scheduled by seniority in accordance with the Part-time Availability Policy. This language was introduced in a 2011 letter of understanding and later incorporated into the collective agreement.

Key Issues

The substantive issue—whether the Employer’s substitution of an exemption-based scheduling system for the prior availability-based system violates the collective agreement—was not determined. This interim award dealt only with pre-hearing production and particulars disputes between the parties.

Decision

On production and particulars, the arbitrator ordered:

• The Union’s requests for master schedules, denied exemption requests, and communications with resigning employees were denied as not arguably relevant to the policy grievance.
• The Employer’s broad requests for bargaining history documents were denied.
• The Employer was directed to provide particulars of all contextual evidence it proposed to offer, including instances where part-time availability protocols were altered.
• The Union was similarly directed to provide particulars.

Significance

This case illustrates the operational complexities of scheduling part-time paramedics—a challenge common across EMS services that rely on a mix of full-time and part-time staff to provide 24/7 coverage. The tension between management’s operational need for scheduling flexibility and the collectively bargained availability framework is a recurring issue in the sector. The interim award also provides useful guidance on proportionality in pre-hearing production in grievance arbitrations, applying a standard that limits parties to arguably relevant documents rather than broad discovery. The merits remain outstanding.

 

3. County of Frontenac — Classification and Seniority Grievance

3. Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union, Local 462 v Corporation of the County of Frontenac

CanLII Citation: 2026 CanLII 47870 (ON LA)

Date: May 19, 2026

Arbitrator: Adam Beatty

Nature: Grievance arbitration

Parties and Background

The County of Frontenac operates a paramedic service with two classifications: Primary Care Paramedic (PCP) and Advanced Care Paramedic (ACP). ACPs have a broader scope of practice. From time to time, the County conducts service-wide rebid processes where all positions are vacated and paramedics select postings by seniority.

In some prior rebids (2016 and 2023), positions were designated as either PCP or exclusively ACP; in 2020, global ACP minimums and maximums were used instead. The grievor, a full-time PCP, filed a grievance about the 2023 rebid process alleging that the designation of certain positions as exclusively ACP violated Article 16.06 of the collective agreement.

Key Issues

The central issue was whether designating positions as exclusively ACP during a rebid process violated the seniority provisions in Article 16.06, which states: “Seniority shall be the deciding factor when filling job vacancies, schedule picks, and overtime.” The Union argued that this language entitled all paramedics to pick any position by seniority regardless of classification. The Employer argued that management retains the right to determine the classification composition of the schedule before seniority-based selection occurs.

Decision

The grievance was dismissed. Arbitrator Beatty found that Article 16.06’s right to pick a schedule by seniority presupposes the existence of a schedule to pick, and the right to create the schedule lies exclusively with the Employer under Article 2.01 (Management Responsibilities). The Employer has the right to determine job classifications, the content of jobs, and the schedule of work. Once the schedule is set—including ACP/PCP designations—employees then exercise seniority to choose among available positions within their classification.

This interpretation harmonises Articles 2.01 and 16.06. The arbitrator also noted that the Union had implicitly accepted similar classification-based restrictions in the 2020 rebid without grieving, which supported the Employer’s interpretation of the parties’ practice.

Significance

This decision affirms that management retains the right to determine the classification composition of a paramedic schedule—including designating positions as exclusively ACP—without violating seniority provisions. It is significant for any EMS employer that needs to ensure adequate distribution of advanced care paramedics across platoons, stations, and shifts to meet clinical standards and base hospital requirements.