Brenda Bowlby

The parents of a child with a learning disability sought leave to appeal the child's identification and placement to a Special Education (Regional) Tribunal.

The parents raised concerns regarding procedural variations, financial motivations, communication breakdown, and the adequacy of the child's current placement.

The Ontario Special Education Tribunal denied leave to appeal, finding that the child's current placement was in their best interests and that there was no evidence that would cause a further tribunal to change the placement.

The complainant and several other professors filed complaints alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The complaints arose from an ongoing internal political dispute within the local union.

The complainants alleged that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith by settling compensation issues arising from workload arbitration awards without their consent, by entering into a consent award that restricted who could act as a union steward during grievance meetings, and by negotiating changes to the collective agreement regarding union representation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the union had the legal authority to settle grievances and workload complaints without the individual grievors' consent.

The Board concluded that the union's decisions were based on reasonable grounds, were not improperly motivated, and were a legitimate exercise of its responsibility to manage the grievance process and administer the collective agreement.

The complainant brought a motion to remove the respondents' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest arising from prior representation.

The Board dismissed the motion, expressing serious doubts about its statutory jurisdiction to regulate the professional conduct of barristers and solicitors, noting that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act protects the right to counsel and specifically exempts lawyers from the tribunal's power to exclude incompetent agents.

Ultimately, the Board declined to entertain the motion on discretionary grounds, finding that the conflict issue was entirely separate from the merits of the duty of fair representation complaint and that determining it would cause undue delay and risk conflicting decisions with the Law Society of Upper Canada or the courts.

The parents of a child with Down syndrome appealed an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision recommending the child be placed in a primary self-contained class for slow learners.

The parents sought placement in an age-appropriate regular class at their neighbourhood school with resource/withdrawal assistance, arguing for the benefits of integration and peer modelling.

The Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's academic and social needs required direct teaching in a small pupil/adult ratio.

The Tribunal concluded that the self-contained class would provide the most effective placement, offering a specialized program while still allowing for integration in non-direct teaching activities.

The appellant, a retail employee, converted to the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which required her to strictly observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Her employer required full-time sales clerks to work on Saturdays.

When the appellant refused to work Saturdays, she was demoted to part-time status.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an intent to discriminate is not a necessary element of discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Court recognized the concept of adverse effect discrimination and established that employers have a duty to take reasonable steps to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, short of undue hardship.

As the employer provided no evidence of undue hardship, the appeal was allowed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the college violated the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act by assigning make-up work to academic staff without mutual consent or additional remuneration following a legislated end to a strike.

The college brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the college was not required to consult the union before assigning the work, as the assignments did not exceed the maximum teaching hours under the collective agreement and were consistent with the back-to-work legislation.

The Board concluded that the allegations could not reasonably or arguably establish a breach of the Act and dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board determined that the application was timely, finding that a prior memorandum of agreement established the true term of the collective agreement.

The Board accepted the employee petition as a voluntary signification that they no longer wished to be represented by the union.

Finding that at least 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had signed the petition, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

One Board member dissented.