David Matheson

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers ordering the production of documents.

The documents, which contained confidential legal advice, had been inadvertently disclosed to the College by a secretary employed by the board.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the secretary lacked authority to waive solicitor-client privilege and that the privilege should be upheld.

The court ordered the return of the documents and the reconstitution of the prosecutorial function with a different prosecutor.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member misappropriated narcotics, falsified documentation, and failed to meet standards of practice regarding the handling and administration of Demerol and Morphine.

Following a hearing, the Discipline Committee found that the College failed to meet the standard of proof required.

The evidence presented was largely circumstantial and relied on inferences rather than facts.

The Committee concluded that the evidence was not clear, cogent, and convincing, and dismissed all allegations of professional misconduct against the Member.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by viewing pornographic images on workplace computers during work hours over a period of several months.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission as to Penalty.

The Member was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was suspended for 30 days, and terms and conditions were imposed on his practice for 12 months.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for bathing one patient in cold water and preparing to bathe another in cold water out of anger.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to meet the standards of practice and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and the completion of remedial courses on patient-focused care and abuse prevention.

The Ontario College of Teachers and the member brought a joint motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence.

The parties consented to dispose of the proceeding without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, based on the member's written undertaking to complete a program in classroom management for special education students and submit to a Teacher Performance Appraisal upon returning to teaching.

The Discipline Committee found the agreement reasonable, in the public interest, and granted the motion to withdraw the allegations.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour with a female student, including excessive communication, exchanging personal information, and continuing the relationship after her graduation.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication of the decision, and a requirement that the member complete a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries with students should he obtain employment requiring a teaching certificate.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct after mistakenly injecting a patient with potassium chloride instead of normal saline and heparin, resulting in the patient's death.

The Member admitted to the allegations and the Discipline Committee found her guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a one-month suspension of her certificate of registration, imposed terms and conditions including a return to work program and learning plan, and required her to appear for a reprimand, noting she had already served a three-month employment suspension.

The member, a teacher, faced discipline proceedings after sending and receiving inappropriate letters to and from a student.

Following an investigation, criminal charges were laid but the member was acquitted at trial due to credibility issues with the complainant and the involvement of civil lawyers.

In the discipline proceeding, the member pleaded guilty to conduct unbecoming a member based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and publication of the findings.

The Ironworkers and Millwrights filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of work by the general contractor, E.S. Fox Limited, for the installation of fabricated material forming part of an integrated material handling system.

The Boilermakers claimed the work based on their collective agreement and constitution.

The Board found that the area practice in Board Area 1 favoured the Ironworkers and Millwrights, and that this practice was open and notorious.

The Board upheld the employer's assignment of the work to equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights performing all work functions interchangeably.

A second jurisdictional dispute involving the Sheet Metal Workers and Boilermakers was scheduled for a later date.

The employer filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint with the Board after referring the dispute to the Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry and receiving a favourable decision.

Bricklayers' Local 1 did not participate in the Plan proceedings and argued it was not bound by the Plan.

The Board found that Local 1 was not bound by the Plan, as it had not agreed to it and the International Union had no authority to bind it.

The Board declined to inquire into the jurisdictional dispute complaint, finding that the employer and Cement Masons had abused the Board's processes by circumventing an agreement to have the Board determine the dispute.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held a consultation regarding a jurisdictional dispute over a work assignment between the Bricklayers and the Operative Plasterers.

The employer had a pre-existing collective agreement with the Bricklayers but voluntarily recognized the Operative Plasterers for the project in question.

The Board determined that the work ought to have been assigned to the Bricklayers, given their pre-existing bargaining rights covering the work, compared to the recently recognized Operative Plasterers.

The related unfair labour practice and construction industry grievance applications were adjourned sine die.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act regarding changes to drivers' working conditions implemented by the responding employer without union input.

The union argued the changes violated the statutory freeze under section 81(1) of the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the interim direction, ordering the employer to rescind the new arrangements and return the situation to what it was prior to the changes, pending bargaining in good faith.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that it was the successor to the bargaining rights of Local 414 with respect to a bargaining unit employed by the responding party.

The International union opposed the application, arguing that it held the bargaining rights, that the disaffiliation of Local 414 was flawed, and that the formation of the new national union and its merger with the USWA were invalid.

The Board found that Local 414 held the bargaining rights, that the disaffiliation and subsequent merger were completed in substantial compliance with the relevant constitutions, and that the new organization was a trade union.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and declared the applicant to be the successor.

The applicant union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties agreed that bargaining had broken down solely due to their respective positions, leaving the reasonableness of the employer's position as the only issue.

The employer insisted on a one-month loss of seniority provision for laid-off employees, which would effectively deny recall rights to its seasonal workforce.

The Board found this position to be uncompromising and without reasonable justification, noting the employer's reliance on administrative burden was unpersuasive given its computer systems.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed applications under sections 1(4) and 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, along with an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89, against Carecor Health Services Inc. and numerous hospitals.

The union alleged that the hospitals formed Carecor to provide a pool of agency nurses to avoid their collective agreement obligations.

The Board dismissed the allegations under sections 50 and 66 for failing to disclose a prima facie case, but allowed the section 64 complaint to proceed.

The Board directed the union to provide particulars of its allegations and ordered that the section 1(4) application and the remaining section 89 complaint be heard together.

The section 106(2) application was adjourned pending the disposition of the other matters.