Elizabeth McIntyre

These applications concerned whether pay equity achieved through proxy pay equity plans in female-dominated long-term care workplaces must be maintained by continued reference to proxy establishments.

The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act imposes a maintenance obligation on proxy plans, but that maintenance does not require ongoing monitoring of changes in compensation or job value in the proxy employer’s establishment.

Instead, maintenance is to be carried out internally by monitoring the compensation/value relationship already established for the key and non-key female job classes.

The Tribunal also rejected the section 15 Charter challenge and held that workplace changes affecting job value made the existing $1.50 plans inappropriate absent a negotiated gender-neutral comparison system.

The matter was adjourned for nine months with directions to negotiate an amendment to the plans.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interim order made by the Ontario Labour Relations Board requiring the provision of properly trained security personnel in a forensic psychiatric unit.

The respondents argued that reviewing the interim order before the Board had completed its proceedings would be an inappropriate, fragmented approach.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the application premature as the Board's proceedings were still ongoing and the impugned order was only one aspect of a broader safety regime being considered.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent unions.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member, a registered nurse, sexually abused a client and breached standards of practice during a night shift.

The allegations included directing the client to expose her breasts, exposing her vaginal area during a bladder scan, and inappropriately touching her genitals during a catheterization.

The Discipline Committee dismissed all allegations, finding the client's testimony to be highly unreliable, inconsistent, and likely the result of misremembered or misinterpreted events due to her altered emotional state and medications.

The College failed to meet its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award which found the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear grievances regarding the hospital's pension contribution deductions.

The arbitrator had concluded that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the pension plan administrator, not the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible, noting the arbitrator properly considered the collective agreement, agreed facts, and relevant jurisprudence including the Weber essential character test.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the boundaries of the nurse-client relationship and engaging in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable psychiatric client.

The Member admitted to the boundary violations, including an inappropriate personal and social relationship, but denied the sexual relationship.

The College called no evidence on the sexual abuse allegations, which were dismissed.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Member permanently resigned his certificate of registration and agreed to reimburse the College $5,000 for expenses.

The Committee accepted a joint submission ordering a reprimand.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for using the restricted title of 'nurse' and holding herself out as qualified to practise while her certificate of registration was suspended for non-payment of fees.

The Member admitted to the allegations and signed an irrevocable undertaking to permanently resign from the College.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand in light of the Member's permanent resignation.

The employer brought an application for judicial review to quash an arbitration award that found supervisors were included in the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the arbitration board chair denied natural justice by circulating a draft award without a prior meeting of the panel, and that the majority's interpretation of the collective agreement was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no agreement to hold a meeting prior to drafting, that the employer nominee had an opportunity to participate, and that the majority's interpretation of the recognition clause was reasonable.

The applicant union brought an application for judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a policy grievance concerning early retirement and separation allowances during long-term layoffs.

The Arbitrator had concluded that the specific benefits in Article 10.14 of the collective agreement only applied to layoffs resulting from integrations and rationalizations, not general layoffs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to disclose terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration to a prospective employer, and for accepting a position she could not fulfill given those restrictions.

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

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand and a six-month suspension.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to his work at off-site sexual health clinics.

The College alleged that the Member failed to ensure blood specimens were sent for testing, informed clients of negative results when specimens were actually spoiled, failed to adequately document nursing care, and engaged in unprofessional conduct.

The Member admitted to the majority of the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension, and various terms and conditions on his certificate of registration.

The applicant fertility centre sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring that a 'health services integration' had occurred when the centre moved out of a hospital and hired some of the hospital's former unionized employees.

The Divisional Court applied the Dunsmuir framework to determine that the standard of review for the Board's interpretation of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 was reasonableness.

The Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusion that the centre was an integrated component of the hospital and its decision to apply the Act were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The plaintiffs, nurses who contracted SARS during the 2003 outbreak, sued Ontario for negligence and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

Ontario moved to strike the claim, arguing it owed no private law duty of care to the nurses.

The motion judge struck parts of the claim but allowed the action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal struck the entire claim, holding that Ontario's duty to protect the public from communicable diseases does not create a private law duty of care to individual healthcare workers.

The Court also found no basis for the section 7 Charter claim, as the government's actions were not arbitrary.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that granted part-time nurses overtime pay for regularly scheduled Saturday shifts.

The arbitrator had found that Saturday work fell outside the normal work week defined in the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation was rationally supported by the language of the agreement.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of the College of Nurses' acquisition of her occupational health and safety records from her former employer without her consent.

The employer had terminated the applicant for cause and reported incidents of professional misconduct to the College.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the records constituted personal health information under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, the Act expressly permitted their disclosure to the College for regulatory purposes.

Furthermore, the College's investigator had broad statutory authority under the Health Professions Procedural Code to request and examine the records.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring a grievor, a registered nurse returning from a medical leave for physical surgery, to provide answers to questions regarding her mental health.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable, as there was no basis to require a psychological assessment given that the grievor's absence was for physical, not mental, reasons.

The application for judicial review was granted and the arbitrator's award was set aside.

The grievor, a nurse, was dismissed for innocent absenteeism after a non-work-related injury frustrated her employment contract.

The employer refused to pay severance pay, relying on s. 58(5)(c) of the Employment Standards Act, which exempts employers from paying severance to employees whose contracts are frustrated due to illness or injury.

The union grieved the denial as a violation of s. 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the provision discriminates against disabled employees by perpetuating the stereotype that they will not return to the workforce, and declared the provision unconstitutional.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for professional misconduct.

The nurse admitted to suggesting that two psychiatric clients be locked in a special observation room, failing to intervene when the clients barricaded the door, and failing to document the events.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the nurse committed professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand and imposed conditions on the nurse's certificate of registration, including completing a psychiatric nursing assessment course and viewing an abuse prevention video, but declined to impose a suspension.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates in November and December 2001 due to the anticipated passage of Bill 130.

The applicant undertook to advise the Board by December 20, 2001, whether it would also seek to adjourn the January 2002 hearing dates.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The union and the employer had a collective agreement providing for a 5% wage increase on October 1, 1993.

The Social Contract Act, 1993 froze public sector compensation but allowed unions to preserve certain increases under s. 24(5), provided they were not merit, cost-of-living, or grid-based increases.

The union elected to preserve the increase.

An arbitrator ruled the increase could not be preserved.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, finding the increase was a simple pay increase that could be preserved, and ordered it paid.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's interpretation on a correctness standard but allowed the appeal in part to remit the matter to a new arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to her care of a pediatric client.

The Member admitted to failing to meet the standards of practice and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct when she spoke abruptly and handled the client forcefully while attempting to administer oxygen therapy.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a three-month suspension (with two months remitted on conditions) and an oral reprimand.