Danielle Bisnar

The University of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to dismantle a protest encampment set up by students and others on Front Campus.

The protesters argued the encampment was a protected exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the University established a strong prima facie case of trespass and ejectment.

The court held that the protesters' appropriation of University property to the exclusion of others constituted irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the University, as the injunction only prohibited camping and erecting structures, while allowing the protesters to continue demonstrating elsewhere on campus.

In an alternative analysis, the court found that the Charter does not apply to the University's management of its property, and even if it did, the trespass notice was a justified limit under section 1.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to report multiple criminal charges and a finding of guilt for driving while intoxicated in Texas, as well as disciplinary action by the Texas Board of Nursing.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts, acknowledging that her conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, though mitigated by an active substance abuse disorder for which she was now in recovery.

The Discipline Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member committed professional misconduct and ordering an oral reprimand, noting that the Member had concurrently signed an undertaking to permanently resign from the College.

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for using improper techniques and excessive force when placing a shoulder restraint on a mental health patient, and for dismissing security guards' concerns about the restraint.

The Member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging that she failed to remove herself from a situation where she could not practice safely due to physiological effects of fear triggered by the patient's behaviour.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, including physical abuse.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct following the death of a patient.

The Member admitted to failing to properly assess the patient, failing to properly administer medication, failing to complete vital signs checks and visual observations, and falsifying records to indicate she had observed the patient breathing and coherent when she had not.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for three months, and terms and conditions were imposed on her practice.

The applicant nurses' union sought judicial review of two directives issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health regarding COVID-19 infection control and the use of N95 respirators.

The applicants argued the directives failed to account for aerosol and asymptomatic transmission and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the directives were reasonable as they expressly incorporated the precautionary principle and permitted nurses to access N95 respirators based on their professional judgment.

The applicants, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others, brought an application against the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application, with reasons to follow.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court, which had found the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The case concerned the interpretation of the Pay Equity Act, specifically whether the statutory proxy method, used to establish pay equity in female-dominated workplaces, must also be used to maintain it.

The Tribunal had ruled that the proxy method was not required for maintenance, leading to an internal comparison method.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable, as it ignored the Act's purpose, scheme, and wording, which necessitate an ongoing comparison to male (or deemed male) comparators to redress systemic gender discrimination.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to specify procedures for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

The Participating Nursing Homes (PNH) appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had directed the PNH and unions to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS) for maintaining pay equity, specifically to address changes in job duties and ensure ongoing compliance with the Pay Equity Act.

The PNH argued that the Act did not require them to tie their maintenance obligation to the proxy employer's historical valuation of male jobs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's authority to ensure compliance with the Act and the necessity of ongoing comparison, including through the proxy method, to maintain pay equity.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a registered nurse for unauthorized access to the electronic medical records of approximately 318 patients and for misappropriating medication from patients' homes during visits that lacked a clinical purpose.

The member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct, characterizing her actions as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a 7-month suspension, and imposed conditions on her certificate of registration, including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification requirements.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against four long-term care (LTC) facilities experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, alleging breaches of Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Directives regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control.

The ONA contended that the facilities failed to provide necessary PPE, particularly N95 masks, and implement appropriate administrative controls like isolating and cohorting residents and staff.

The facilities argued they complied with directives and that the ONA sought control over scarce resources.

The court found that the matter, though a labour dispute, required the court's inherent jurisdiction due to the inability to expedite arbitral processes.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm to nurses and residents.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, prioritizing health and safety.

The court ordered the LTC facilities to provide nurses with access to N95 respirators and other appropriate PPE based on point-of-care assessment and to implement administrative controls as per CMOH Directives.

The applicant sought judicial review of a supplementary award by a Board of Arbitration that granted improved vacation benefits for part-time nurses.

The original award had increased vacation entitlements for full-time nurses but was silent on part-time nurses.

The Board issued a supplementary award, stating the omission was an oversight and rejecting the applicant's argument that it was functus officio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision that it was not functus officio was reasonable, as the omission was an error in expressing the manifest intention of the Board and the Board remained seized of the implementation of the award under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for accessing the personal health information of 11 patients without consent or proper authorization, and for impersonating a family member in a voicemail to the hospital to excuse the unauthorized access.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, characterizing her actions as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of a nurse who misappropriated narcotics from the respondent hospital.

The arbitrator found that the nurse was addicted to narcotics and would not have engaged in the misconduct 'but for' her addiction, yet dismissed the grievance.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the arbitrator unreasonably applied an outdated legal test for prima facie discrimination rather than the established three-part test confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The award was set aside and the grievance remitted to a new arbitrator.

The applicant unions sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision regarding the maintenance of pay equity in predominantly female workplaces.

The Tribunal had ruled that the Pay Equity Act did not require employers to use the proxy comparison method on an ongoing basis to maintain pay equity.

The Divisional Court found that while the Act itself does not violate section 15 of the Charter, the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable because it failed to consider Charter values.

The Court held that a proportionate balancing of Charter equality rights and the Act's statutory mandate requires that women in predominantly female workplaces have continued access to male comparators through the proxy method to maintain pay equity.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by accessing the electronic health records of up to 394 clients without consent or authorization over an 11-month period.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of contravening a standard of practice and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and the imposition of terms, conditions, and limitations including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a registered nurse for working overlapping shifts at two different hospitals.

The nurse admitted to calling in sick or taking unpaid family emergency leave at one facility while working and receiving pay at the other, resulting in misappropriation of time and funds.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the nurse committed professional misconduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a seven-month suspension, a reprimand, and terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The Ontario Nurses' Association appealed a Divisional Court decision that had set aside an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement between the ONA and Toronto East General Hospital.

The dispute arose from the Hospital's closure of beds in a unit, which reduced available work hours for regular part-time nurses.

The Hospital spread the reduction across all part-time nurses without regard to seniority.

The arbitrator found this constituted a lay-off triggering the collective agreement's lay-off provisions, which require seniority-based reductions.

The Divisional Court reversed, finding the arbitrator's decision internally inconsistent and contrary to the collective agreement's terms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's interpretation reasonable and consistent with the collective agreement's language and purpose.

The appellant, a police superintendent acting as Incident Commander during the 2010 G20 Summit, appealed convictions for professional misconduct relating to the mass arrests of protestors at the Novotel Hotel and the intersection of Queen and Spadina.

The Hearing Officer found the arrests were unlawful and constituted an unnecessary exercise of authority, and that the appellant committed discreditable conduct by leaving detainees in inclement weather.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law regarding reasonable and probable grounds and the ancillary powers doctrine.

On the cross-appeals regarding penalty, the Commission found the original penalties (a reprimand and forfeiture of 10 days off) were unreasonable given the severity of the Charter breaches.

The Commission varied the penalties to the forfeiture of 20 days off for each of the two unlawful arrest convictions, to be served consecutively with the 20 days off forfeited for discreditable conduct.