Adam Beatty

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

Throughout the proceedings, the applicant repeatedly disregarded the Tribunal's directions, filed numerous frivolous requests for orders, and made unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing against opposing counsel, Tribunal staff, and others regarding the filing of materials.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's persistent refusal to accept rulings and her preoccupation with filing issues derailed the proceeding, making it manifestly unfair to the respondents.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process, though the Tribunal declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Member, a teacher in a special needs program, physically restrained a student who was acting out and wrapping a cord around his neck.

The Member held the student's arms behind his back in a corner for one to three minutes until he cried.

The Member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including physical abuse of a student.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, completion of a classroom management course, and publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct including verbal, physical, and psychological abuse of students, failure to supervise, and inappropriate discipline over two school years.

The Member pleaded guilty to the allegations based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, the completion of coursework on classroom management and student discipline, and publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally and psychologically abusing students, including shouting, discarding materials, and pushing students' heads.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand to be recorded on the Register and published with the Member's name in the College's official publication.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and reprisal against her employer school board and her union.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the pre-August 2013 allegations against the school board for delay, finding they constituted a series of incidents under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed most allegations against the union, except for a claim regarding discriminatory comments.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant leave to amend her application to include post-application allegations of reprisal, but denied an amendment regarding the respondents' refusal to accept her resignation.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct arising from an incident where he failed to supervise five students during a neighbourhood walk, resulting in inappropriate sexual interactions between the students.

The Discipline Committee accepted the uncontested facts and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand to be recorded on the Register and publication of the decision in the College's official publication without the Member's name, noting the incident was isolated and the Member had retired.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the school board and the teachers' union.

The respondent school board filed requests for a summary hearing and to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The Tribunal also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant at this time, but directed the parties to refrain from filing further requests for orders during proceedings until a preliminary hearing is completed to determine the scope of the application.

The College brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member set out in a 2009 Notice of Hearing.

College counsel advised that the allegations dated back to the late 1990s and early 2000s, and that none of the witnesses were willing or able to testify to the events.

As there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding of professional misconduct due to insufficient evidence, and with the consent of the member, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations.

The applicant, a parent with a communication disability, filed a human rights application against the school board alleging discrimination for refusing to allow email as a regular means of communication with teachers.

The applicant brought a request to add the Ministry of Education and the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) as respondents, arguing they were necessary to achieve a public interest remedy regarding a formal email policy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no allegations of Code violations against the proposed respondents and concluding their addition would unfairly complicate the proceeding.

ETFO was granted affected person status.

The employer school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been discharged for inappropriate behaviour towards a female colleague.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the award, finding that the arbitrator made several fundamental errors.

Specifically, the arbitrator failed to make critical findings of fact regarding the allegations, improperly applied a subjective test for harassment that required intent, and failed to ask whether the proven inappropriate conduct constituted just cause for discipline even if it did not amount to harassment.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.