Worker on medical leave since 1999 accused of submitting 1,500 invalid drug receipts
In a decision released May 4, 2026, Ontario's Divisional Court upheld a labour board ruling that sided with the union after a General Motors employee was fired.
The employee had been on medical leave since 1999 and was accused of submitting 1,500 invalid prescription drug claim receipts and being asked to reimburse $225,218.
The ruling confirmed that Unifor did not breach its duty of fair representation when it dropped his grievance. The applicant had been in the GM bargaining unit since 1984.
Benefits fraud allegation
The worker went on medical leave in 1999 and did not return. Throughout his medical leave, he received wage replacement benefits from General Motors' disability insurers, and he relocated to the Philippines during his leave.
While on leave, he remained in GM's health benefit plan administered by Green Shield Canada (GSC). In 2021, GSC advised the worker that it had investigated his prescription drug claims and concluded that 1,500 claim receipts were invalid and not eligible for reimbursement.
The insurer demanded that he reimburse the company for $225,218. Through a lawyer, the worker denied the accusations, but GSC did not accept his explanations.
In 2023, the worker attempted to return to work. General Motors launched its own investigation into the allegations of benefits fraud, found GSC's findings to be substantiated, and terminated his employment.
Union withdraws grievance
The union filed a grievance challenging the termination. It pursued the grievance through the four-step grievance process in the collective agreement but ultimately withdrew it on the basis that it would likely be unsuccessful at arbitration.
The worker alleged the union's handling was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, allegations the board rejected, and the Divisional Court agreed.
Citing the leading case Switzer, the board observed: "So long as it acts honestly, objectively and gives due consideration to matters which fall within the ambit of its responsibility as exclusive bargaining agent, a union will not be held to account if it makes a mistake or a simple error in judgment. A union has a sort of limited 'right to be wrong'."
The worker also argued that a Unifor representative should have recused himself, claiming he had helped develop the health benefits trust later administered by GSC while serving as chair of the FCA Master Bargaining Committee. The board and court rejected the argument: it was raised for the first time on reconsideration, and the record disclosed no reasonable apprehension of bias.
No discrimination by union
The worker pointed to a Nov. 6, 2023 affidavit that he said cleared his name. The court was unpersuaded: "The affidavit was not provided to GSC when it raised the allegations in 2021; it was only provided after [the worker's] attempted return to work in 2023. It also was only seven paragraphs long, had limited detail, and was presumably sworn by Mr. Winegardner's friends or supporters."
The worker also alleged the union ignored disability-based discrimination. Like the conflict-of-interest argument, this was raised only on reconsideration. The board found the claim as pleaded was "entirely devoid of material facts and is therefore incapable, alone, of supporting the claim of discrimination being advanced."
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's reasons coherent, consistent with governing case law, and reflective of a clear engagement with the facts and applicable legal principles. The union did not seek costs and none were ordered.
