Christine L. Lonsdale

York University and York University Development Corporation (YUDC) sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision denying their request for reconsideration of an order requiring the production of certain records.

The applicants argued the Adjudicator erred in finding the records were under the control of York University pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and in her approach to the reconsideration threshold.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Adjudicator reasonably applied the two-part control test from National Defence and reasonably placed the onus on the applicants to establish grounds for reconsideration.

The defendants brought a motion to determine the sequencing of their proposed summary judgment motion and the plaintiff's certification motion in a class action.

The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of s. 4.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which governs pre-certification motions.

The court followed the precedent set in Dufault v. Toronto Dominion Bank, affirming a presumptive right for preliminary motions that can dispose of or narrow issues to be heard before certification.

The court found that the defendants' proposed summary judgment motion raised genuinely arguable issues concerning limitation periods and the legality of their "negative vacation bank" policy under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which could narrow the litigation.

Consequently, the court ordered the summary judgment motion to proceed prior to the certification motion.

The Member, a teacher, faced a discipline hearing for professional misconduct after refusing to use the preferred names and pronouns of two transgender students.

The Member also made inappropriate comments questioning their gender identity, distributed non-curricular materials reflecting his personal beliefs, and sent inappropriate emails to school administration.

The Member pled guilty via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal and psychological abuse.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and the completion of a course on diversity and inclusion.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw all allegations of incompetence against the Member.

The allegations arose from three unsatisfactory performance appraisals that were subsequently annulled after the Member grieved his dismissal.

In exchange for the withdrawal, the Member entered into an Undertaking and Acknowledgement requiring him to complete an additional qualification course and undergo two performance appraisals within 24 months.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that proceeding with a hearing had no reasonable prospect of success and that the Undertaking adequately protected the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct, including verbal and psychological abuse of students, sexual misconduct, and practising under the influence of a substance.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, which involved making inappropriate and sexualized comments and gestures to students, attending school smelling of a substance contrary to prescribed treatment, and failing to follow absence reporting protocols.

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, a two-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification, and the successful completion of a course on boundary violations.

The applicant, a former teacher whose certificate was retroactively revoked due to a prior finding of professional misconduct involving sexual abuse, applied for reinstatement.

The Registrar determined the application was premature, interpreting the five-year waiting period under subsection 33(4.1) of the Act as starting from the date of the deemed revocation rather than the date of the original discipline order.

The Divisional Court found the Registrar's interpretation unreasonable, as it ignored the clear statutory language and context, and quashed the decision, ordering the Registrar to refer the reinstatement application to the discipline committee.

The Member, a teacher, pled no contest to allegations of professional misconduct after he followed a student into a locker room, invaded his personal space, and yelled inappropriate remarks in response to the student swearing at him.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal and psychological abuse, failing to maintain professional standards, and disgraceful or dishonourable conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of an anger management course.

John Doe brought a motion to extend the time to serve and file a Notice of Appeal from a lower court order that denied his standing to appear as an anonymous party and make submissions on an Anti-SLAPP motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that Doe did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant period, his delay was a result of a failed litigation strategy, and granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the responding parties.

The court also found the proposed appeal lacked merit, rejecting the novel argument that Anti-SLAPP provisions protect anonymity in litigation.

The member, an occasional teacher, faced a discipline hearing regarding an incident where a student was sexually assaulted by a group of students in his classroom.

The member failed to intervene, did not allow the victim to leave the classroom, and failed to seek assistance from the principal.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, the Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including failing to maintain the standards of the profession, failing to supervise adequately, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the successful completion of a course on classroom management.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation over anonymous reviews posted by a former employee on Glassdoor's website.

Glassdoor brought a motion to dismiss the action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the reviews were expressions on a matter of public interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the reviews regarding workplace conditions, salaries, and management style constituted a private grievance between a former employee and employer, rather than a matter of public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member due to insufficient evidence.

The member's counsel consented to the motion.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that there was no reasonable prospect of a finding of professional misconduct and that proceeding would not be in the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to compel two police services to produce unredacted records relating to their investigations of incidents involving students at a school where the members were principal and vice-principal.

The members and the police services either consented or did not oppose the motion.

Applying the first stage of the O'Connor test, the Discipline Committee found the records were likely relevant and ordered the police services to produce them to the Panel for review, subject to certain redactions and Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to compel the production of third-party records from two police services regarding an incident involving students at a school where the members were principal and vice-principal.

The Discipline Committee applied the first stage of the O'Connor test and found that the records were likely relevant.

The Committee ordered the police services to produce the unredacted records to the Panel for review, after which the Panel will determine whether they should be produced to the parties.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse, relating to an ongoing inappropriate personal and romantic relationship with a student.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations and agreed to a statement of uncontested facts detailing grooming behaviour, inappropriate electronic communications, and meeting the student alone in his vehicle.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate and a reprimand.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct, including allegations of sexual abuse of a student.

The member pleaded no contest to an agreed statement of facts detailing an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable student, which included lengthy electronic communications and clandestine meetings.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and disgraceful conduct.

Applying the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate and issued a reprimand.

The Member, a short-term occasional teacher, pled no contest to allegations of professional misconduct relating to several incidents of inadequate student supervision and poor classroom management.

The incidents included leaving young students unsupervised, delaying students' departure causing them to miss their bus, losing track of a student, and yelling at a student in front of peers.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including failing to maintain professional standards, psychological abuse, and failing to adequately supervise students.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of a classroom management course before returning to teaching.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence against the Member.

The allegations arose from three unsatisfactory performance appraisals, but a grievance arbitrator subsequently found the Member should have received specific supports and a re-appraisal.

In exchange for the withdrawal, the Member signed an Undertaking and Acknowledgement agreeing to complete an additional qualification course and undergo further performance appraisals upon returning to teaching.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding it was in the public interest as the Undertaking provided similar public protection to what would likely have been ordered following a contested hearing.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally, physically, and emotionally abusing students.

The Member yelled at students, used inappropriate language, and used unnecessary physical force.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

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, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the successful completion of an anger management course.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The Member, a former school board superintendent, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct involving the misuse of a corporate credit card for personal expenses, submitting false expense claims, and forging documents.

The Member had previously pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to forged documents submitted to the U.S. Consulate.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a 22-month suspension of his teaching certificate, and the completion of a professional ethics course.