Christopher Reid

The Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation appealed a zoning by-law amendment approved by the Township of Selwyn that permitted a 40-site expansion to an existing trailer park.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the applicant, Lovesick Lake Beach Resort Ltd. The applicant challenged the appellant's standing to appeal under the Planning Act, which the Tribunal directed to be heard at a subsequent formal motion hearing.

The Member, a transportation technology teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct.

During the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 academic years, he failed to adequately teach his classes, relying almost exclusively on video lessons and failing to answer student questions.

He also used the school's auto body shop and equipment to perform work for an external business, receiving financial benefits in return, and failed to report this conflict of interest.

The Discipline Committee found him guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and the completion of coursework on curriculum, lesson planning, instructional strategies, and conflict of interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member, a special education teacher, alleging professional misconduct including verbal and physical abuse of students and unprofessional conduct towards colleagues.

The Member denied the allegations, arguing that her loud speaking volume was due to her cultural background and that the investigations were tainted by anti-Black racism.

The Discipline Committee found that the College proved the majority of the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee held that the Member yelled at colleagues in front of students, made disparaging remarks about students' disabilities, yelled at a student with special needs, and physically hit and taunted another student.

The Committee rejected the Member's claims of racial targeting, finding the investigations objective and the witnesses credible.

The Committee concluded that the Member's actions constituted professional misconduct, including failing to maintain the standards of the profession, verbal and physical abuse, and disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Member, a teacher facing allegations of professional misconduct including sexual abuse of two students, brought two pre-hearing motions before the Discipline Committee.

First, the Member sought to sever the allegations relating to Student 1 from those relating to Student 2, arguing that hearing them together would cause prejudice through propensity reasoning.

Second, the Member objected to the College's intention to hold the hearing electronically, arguing that an electronic hearing for key witnesses violated section 7 of the Charter and breached his right to procedural fairness.

The Discipline Committee dismissed both motions.

Applying the factors from R. v. Last, the Committee found that the public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings outweighed any potential prejudice, and that the panel's structure mitigated the risk of propensity reasoning.

Regarding the electronic hearing, the Committee held that section 7 of the Charter does not protect the pure economic interest of practicing a profession.

Furthermore, applying the Baker factors, the Committee concluded that electronic hearings do not inherently hinder credibility assessments or violate procedural fairness.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations that he failed to adequately supervise students, abandoned classes, and reacted aggressively to a student regarding an attendance sheet.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including failing to supervise, unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and required the member to complete a course on classroom management and supervision.

The member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct after showing a PowerPoint presentation containing offensive terms and subsequently using a racial slur during a classroom discussion about inappropriate language.

The member pled guilty to the allegations, admitting that her conduct was culturally insensitive and caused considerable discomfort to students.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and required the member to complete a course on appropriate communication and cultural sensitivity.

The plaintiff brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondent for his participation as a spokesperson in a railway blockade, in defiance of an injunction.

The respondent admitted knowledge of the order and his continued participation, leading to a finding of contempt.

In determining the appropriate sanction, the court declined to issue a continuing restraining order, noting the respondent had helped dismantle the blockade.

Applying principles for aboriginal contemnors and costs rules, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $16,584.87 to the plaintiff.

The alleged contemnor, Ron Plain, brought a motion for extensive disclosure in a civil contempt proceeding arising from a railway blockade.

He sought the disclosure to mount a novel Charter challenge and collateral attack against the underlying injunction.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that a collateral attack on a valid court order is not permitted in contempt proceedings.

Furthermore, applying a contextual approach to civil contempt, the court found that the extensive disclosure sought was not necessary, particularly given that the applicant sought only costs as a sanction.

The appellants were successful on their appeal and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants costs fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondent Frontenac Ventures Corporation was ordered to pay $40,000, and the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario was ordered to pay $10,000, as its position during the original contempt and sentencing hearings was instrumental in leading to the appeal.

Following a successful appeal of sentences imposed for contempt, the appellants sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants their costs of the appeal fixed at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondent corporation was ordered to pay $20,000, and the respondent Minister was ordered to pay $5,000, as the Minister's position during the original contempt and sentencing hearings was instrumental in leading to the appeal.

The appellants, a First Nation and its leaders, engaged in a peaceful protest and blockade to prevent a private mining company from conducting exploratory drilling on lands subject to an ongoing aboriginal land claim.

They were found in civil contempt for violating interim and interlocutory injunctions and were sentenced to six months' imprisonment and substantial fines.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the custodial and monetary sentences, holding that they were excessively harsh and that the sentencing principles from R. v. Gladue apply to aboriginal persons facing civil contempt proceedings.

The appellants, a First Nation and six individuals, appealed their six-month sentences for contempt of a court order.

The respondent did not oppose the appeal, conceding that the appellants had spent enough time in jail and that the underlying dispute required negotiation.

The Court of Appeal accepted the respondent's position and allowed the appeal, ordering the release of the appellants.