Christopher Perri

The Member, an occasional teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally and psychologically abusing students.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations, which included raising a fist at a student, making inappropriate comments about suicide that distressed students, throwing a student's ruler, and denying students water after recess on a hot day.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and required the Member to complete a course on classroom management, communication, and boundary issues.

The Member, an occasional teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct including verbal and psychological abuse of students, inadequate supervision, and unprofessional interactions with colleagues and superiors.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations and agreed to a statement of uncontested facts.

The Discipline Committee 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 teaching certificate, and the successful completion of coursework in professional ethics and classroom management.

This was a costs endorsement following a successful constitutional application challenging provisions of election finance legislation under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court held that partial indemnity remained the appropriate scale because the respondent government's conduct was professional and did not justify substantial or full indemnity costs.

In fixing a fair overall award, the court emphasized that four applicant groups had advanced identical legal challenges in a consolidated proceeding, and that economies of scale had to be reflected in the result.

The court reduced the aggregate request from approximately $690,000 to $500,000 and apportioned that amount among the successful applicants.

No costs were awarded for or against the Chief Electoral Officer or the intervenor.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act that extended the pre-election restricted spending period for third-party political advertising from six to twelve months.

The court found that the 12-month restriction infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Oakes test, the court held that while the objective of fostering fair elections was pressing and substantial, the 12-month period failed the minimal impairment test because the government's own experts indicated a six-month period was effective.

The impugned provisions were declared of no force or effect.

The Member brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled discipline hearing dates for medical reasons.

The College did not oppose the motion but requested terms and conditions.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment to September 13, 2021, and imposed conditions on any future adjournment requests for medical reasons, including the requirement to submit to an independent medical evaluation if requested by the College.

The applicants in a constitutional application requested leave to file factums exceeding the 30-page limit prescribed by the Practice Direction.

The Attorney General opposed the request.

The court denied the request, emphasizing that the 30-page limit is a serious policy intended to focus counsel on the issues, and that leave is exceptional and granted sparingly.

The court noted that since there was still a week before the factums were due, counsel had sufficient time to produce shorter, more focused versions.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an employment contract, claiming entitlement to a 1.5% equity stake in the defendant limited partnership.

The parties disputed the nature of the agreement, the entity in which the equity was held, and the value of the shares, relying on conflicting pre-employment emails and formal documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence and lack of valuation data created genuine issues of credibility and fact that required a trial.

The plaintiff, a retired insurance producer, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that both 'assigned' and 'developed' clients should be included in the calculation of his deferred compensation pool under his employment contract.

The defendant employer argued that only 'developed' clients were included.

The court found no ambiguity in the employment contract, concluding that the clear language of the agreement allocated only 'new customers' (developed clients) to the deferred compensation pool.

The plaintiff's motion and claim were dismissed.

This appeal concerns a wrongful dismissal claim by a former wardrobe stylist and fashion studio manager who worked for the defendant for 23 years (1994-2017).

The motion judge found the employee was a dependent contractor from 1994 to 2004, then became an employee.

The termination clause was found void as it attempted to contract out of minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded 21 months' pay in lieu of notice, 10 percent of base salary for loss of benefits, compensation for unlawful wage deductions, and damages for loss of cell phone allowance.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

The moving party sought a motion to review a decision dismissing her motion for an order exempting her from the requirement to sign an undertaking not to disseminate audio recordings of court proceedings.

She also sought permission to video record the motion to review hearing itself.

The court held that parties are not entitled to obtain and disseminate audio or video recordings of proceedings on their own terms.

The open courts principle does not automatically override statutory restrictions on recording.

The court dismissed the motion to review and awarded costs to the respondent London District Catholic School Board.

The plaintiff was successful in her wrongful dismissal action and sought costs of $32,509.05, calculated on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of an unaccepted offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive due to alleged double lawyering and overdone legal service, suggesting an award of $15,451.50.

The court found the plaintiff's costs claim to be fair, reasonable, and within the reasonable expectations of the defendant, awarding the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The court found the plaintiff was a dependent contractor from 1994 to 2004 and an employee thereafter, entitling her to a 21-month reasonable notice period based on a 23-year relationship.

The employer's termination clause was held unenforceable for failing to maintain statutory benefits during the notice period.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for pay in lieu of notice, loss of benefits, and reimbursement for unlawful wage deductions made under an unpaid vacation program.

The applicant brought a motion seeking several orders: dispensing with the requirement to sign a standard undertaking to obtain audio recordings of earlier motions; permission to transcribe those proceedings; direction to publish reasons of a prior motion judge; and permission to challenge the constitutional validity of portions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents took no position on the motion.

The Attorney General of Ontario and Department of Justice Canada argued the motion was not properly before the court and that the Notice of Constitutional Question was a nullity.

The court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, as the underlying appeal had been quashed in prior proceedings.

The respondents moved to quash an appeal brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on the basis that the appellant was seeking to appeal interlocutory orders of the Superior Court of Justice, which should have been appealed to the Divisional Court with leave.

The appellant sought to appeal orders made by Justice Lynne Leitch and Justice A. Duncan Grace, including an order transferring a judicial review application to the Divisional Court and a costs order of $10,000.

The Court of Appeal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and granted the motion to quash, awarding nominal costs of $2,000 to the respondents.

Tagg Industries brought a motion for summary judgment against its former employee, Otto Rieder, seeking repayment of a $40,000 loan.

Tagg argued Rieder was fired for just cause, thus forfeiting a bonus that would have forgiven the loan.

Rieder countered that he was fired without just cause and was entitled to common law notice, which would extend to the bonus vesting date, thereby forgiving the loan.

Rieder also sought summary judgment on his counterclaim for wrongful dismissal.

The court dismissed Tagg's motion, finding Rieder was fired without just cause.

The court determined Rieder was entitled to at least one month's common law notice, calculated as a calendar month, which extended to the bonus vesting date, thereby offsetting the loan.

The court also granted summary judgment to Rieder on his counterclaim, awarding him damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee and discriminated against her based on family status.

Upon returning from maternity leave, the respondent was demoted, had her hours reduced, and faced reprisals when she objected, culminating in her termination.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no just cause for dismissal, the 12-month notice period was reasonable, and the $20,000 human rights damages award for family status discrimination was justified.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The respondent and intervenor union sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved by Minutes of Settlement reached at arbitration.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application because the applicant had not signed the settlement and did not implicitly accept its terms.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application to include her subsequent termination, and deferred the entire application pending the outcome of an expedited arbitration regarding the termination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after her employment was terminated while she was on pregnancy and parental leave.

She also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the ESA complaint.

Despite the applicant's objections, the Tribunal found that the circumstances giving rise to both proceedings were the same, creating a risk of concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the ESA proceeding is concluded or abandoned.