Beth Symes

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member, a Registered Nurse, committed professional misconduct by elbowing an elderly, combative client in the face.

The allegations rested primarily on the testimony of a Personal Support Worker who claimed to have witnessed the incident.

The Discipline Committee assessed the credibility of the witnesses and preferred the evidence of the Member, finding the PSW's testimony inconsistent and the mechanics of the alleged strike physically improbable.

The panel concluded that the College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities and dismissed all charges.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of documents relating to job competitions prior to June 2008.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it should not be put to the time and expense of producing over 2000 documents and that the allegations should be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent's request to dismiss the allegations had already been denied in a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose documents arguably relevant to the job competitions between 1991 and 2006.

The applicant and respondent made a joint request to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to dismiss the application.

Pursuant to section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal ordered the application dismissed.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights application, arguing that allegations predating November 12, 2009 were untimely, lacked particularity, and failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the historical allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, bringing them within the time limit.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations for lack of a prima facie case but ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding job competitions between 1992 and 2006.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several procedural issues.

The Tribunal permitted the self-represented applicant to call additional medical witnesses provided she filed witness statements by a specified deadline.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose relevant medical and psychological records to the personal respondent, finding that her claims for psychological harm and special damages made the records relevant, outweighing her privacy interests.

Confidentiality conditions were imposed on the disclosure.

Finally, the applicant was ordered to provide particulars regarding her claims for out-of-pocket expenses and other allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and harassment by the personal respondent, a police officer.

The personal respondent, who was also facing disciplinary charges under the Police Services Act arising from the same events, requested a further extension of time to file a complete Response until after his disciplinary hearing concluded, citing prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it amounted to an effective deferral of the application, which had already been denied.

The Tribunal rescinded the previous order requiring a fuller Response and directed the matter to mediation.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed three procedural requests in an application alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents requested the dismissal of allegations predating September 15, 2008, as untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application and dismissed the personal respondent's request for the production of medical records as premature, noting that disclosure obligations arise only once a hearing is scheduled.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award ordering the pre-hearing production of a grievor's psychiatric records from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The applicant argued that under section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act, only the Divisional Court could order such production.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the legislation, finding that section 35(5) permits pre-hearing disclosure of mental health records pursuant to a summons or order without requiring a section 35(9) determination, which applies to the admission of evidence at a hearing.

However, the Court found the arbitrator's order was over-broad and amended it to limit the scope of records and require initial disclosure only to the arbitrator to assess relevance and privacy interests.

The appellants appealed a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding they sexually harassed an employee and retaliated against her and her stepfather for making a human rights complaint.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings of liability, concluding that the admission of similar fact evidence was reasonable and the Tribunal's reasons, though sparse, met the minimum standard to support the findings of discrimination.

However, the Court found the Tribunal's reasons inadequate to support the compensation and public interest remedies ordered.

The Court substituted its own awards, reducing the special damages and mental anguish awards for both complainants, and set aside the public interest orders.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action against the respondent.

The action had vested in his trustee in bankruptcy by operation of law.

The motion judge found that the trustee had abandoned the action and that the appellant had declared bankruptcy on the eve of trial to defeat the interests of his creditors.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with these findings and dismissed the appeal, noting that re-assigning the action to the appellant would pervert the fundamental purposes of bankruptcy litigation.

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) which reinstated a police officer who had been terminated by a Hearing Officer.

The officer, who developed a cocaine addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder while working undercover, had pled guilty to drug possession and disciplinary charges.

The employer and the officer had presented a joint submission on penalty proposing reinstatement with strict conditions, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of termination.

OCCPS found the Hearing Officer's decision unreasonable and substituted the joint submission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Chief of Police's appeal, holding that OCCPS correctly applied the reasonableness standard of review and reasonably concluded that the Hearing Officer ignored relevant evidence and the employer's duty to accommodate the officer's disability.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a disciplinary penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct related to cocaine possession and use.

The Hearing Officer had rejected a joint submission on penalty that proposed a 'last chance' agreement involving demotion and strict conditions, citing concerns about the officer's credibility and the source of the drugs.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the officer's cocaine addiction as a handicap requiring accommodation, and relied on speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence.

The penalty was varied to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant, a police officer with 16 years of service, appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer following his guilty plea to two counts of discreditable conduct related to cocaine possession and use.

The misconduct occurred while the appellant was working as an undercover drug operative and suffering from an addiction.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance agreement' with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the appellant's addiction as a handicap requiring accommodation, relied on speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence, and imposed an unduly harsh penalty.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, developed a cocaine addiction and was criminally convicted of simple possession.

He pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance' agreement with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission and ordered the appellant to resign or be dismissed.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred by relying on speculative conclusions and failing to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate the appellant's addiction.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The appellants brought an action in the Superior Court alleging an unconstitutional exercise of discretion under section 114(2) of the Immigration Act regarding the deportation of a parent.

The motion judge declined jurisdiction in favour of the Federal Court.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, holding that the Federal Court is the proper forum for immigration matters unless it is shown to be ineffective or inappropriate.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The appellant landlords appealed a Board of Inquiry decision finding that their use of rent-to-income ratios to screen prospective tenants constituted constructive discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that the sole use of such criteria disproportionately excluded protected groups and was not a bona fide requirement.

However, the Court amended the Board's forward-looking prohibition against using income criteria, noting that recent amendments to the Code and O. Reg. 290/98 now expressly permit landlords to use income information in specific ways.

Three complainants alleged that the respondent landlords discriminated against them by using minimum income criteria and rent-to-income ratios to deny them rental accommodation.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry found that the use of these criteria constitutes adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, family status, age, citizenship, place of origin, and receipt of public assistance.

The Board held that the landlords failed to establish that the income criteria were reasonable and bona fide, as there was no empirical evidence showing that rent-to-income ratios accurately predict a tenant's likelihood of defaulting on rent.

The Board ordered the landlords to cease using income criteria and awarded general and specific damages to the complainants.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer following the purchase of a tavern and transfer of its liquor licence.

The respondent argued that no sale of a business occurred because the transaction involved a mortgagee in possession and the premises had been closed.

Alternatively, the respondent sought to terminate bargaining rights due to a substantial change in the character of the business, citing a shift to a 'goth' theme and new wave music.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred, as the essential elements, including the premises and liquor licence, were transferred.

The Board also dismissed the request to terminate bargaining rights, holding that changes in decor and entertainment do not constitute a fundamental difference in the nature of the work.

The respondent was declared bound by the collective agreement.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent purchaser of a tavern business committed an unfair labour practice by refusing to employ former employees because of their union membership.

The respondent declared bankruptcy and did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that because the sale occurred after the collective agreement expired, the respondent was not bound to continue the employment of the predecessor's employees.

Since the grievors did not formally apply for employment until months later, and there was no evidence of available positions or compensable loss at that time, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent hospital and the Ontario Hospital Association, alleging breaches of the duty to bargain in good faith and interference with statutory rights regarding the discontinuance of extended tours.

The respondents raised several preliminary objections, including that the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case, that the Board should defer to arbitration, that the complaint lacked particularity, and that it was untimely.

The Board dismissed all preliminary objections, finding that the complaint raised complex issues of law and policy that required a full hearing on the merits, and that the issues transcended the collective agreement such that deferral to arbitration was inappropriate.