Emilie Bruneau

The applicant, a former teacher whose certificate was retroactively revoked due to a prior finding of professional misconduct involving sexual abuse, applied for reinstatement.

The Registrar determined the application was premature, interpreting the five-year waiting period under subsection 33(4.1) of the Act as starting from the date of the deemed revocation rather than the date of the original discipline order.

The Divisional Court found the Registrar's interpretation unreasonable, as it ignored the clear statutory language and context, and quashed the decision, ordering the Registrar to refer the reinstatement application to the discipline committee.

At a discipline hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct, the member presented a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest.

During the panel's investigation of the plea, the member made representations that raised concerns about the validity of the plea and the agreement between the parties.

With the consent of the parties and on the advice of Independent Legal Counsel, the panel ordered an adjournment.

The matter will be heard by a newly constituted panel.

The Member, a teacher, faced a discipline hearing for making inappropriate and vulgar comments to a student in class, and for taking school property for personal use and damaging a school storage locker to gain access.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal and psychological abuse of a student, and disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a 10-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of a professional ethics course.

The Member, a school principal, faced allegations of professional misconduct including unauthorized absences, inappropriate personal use of a board credit card, claiming expenses multiple times, issuing cheques without supporting documents, failing to disclose a conflict of interest regarding the hiring of a relative, and creating a toxic work environment.

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

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension of her certificate, and the completion of a professional ethics course.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for physically abusing students, including kicking a student and pulling others by the arm.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the successful completion of a course on anger management and effective classroom management.

The Member, an occasional teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for repeatedly failing to report to work, failing to attend meetings with the Board, and making unprofessional remarks about a colleague.

The Member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of her Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the completion of an ethics and professional responsibilities course.

During a legal strike, graduate student teaching assistants engaged in picketing and protests.

Following the strike, the university disciplined them under the Student Code of Conduct.

The students sought judicial review, arguing that under the Back to Class Act and the Labour Relations Act, a labour arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over discipline related to strike activities.

The Divisional Court agreed and quashed the university tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the university's appeal, confirming that the specific, strike-ending legislation mandated that any dispute concerning discipline for activities during the strike be determined through grievance arbitration.

The member faced allegations of incompetence following two performance appraisals that resulted in 'Development Needed' and 'Unsatisfactory' ratings.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, admitting to serious deficiencies in teaching practice, including poor classroom management, failure to adapt lessons for students with IEPs, and failure to conduct ongoing assessments.

The Discipline Committee found the member incompetent and accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The member's certificate was made subject to terms, conditions, and limitations, requiring the successful completion of an additional qualification course in teaching strategies and classroom management, as well as two performance appraisals upon resuming a teaching position.

The moving defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the medical malpractice action against him, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to correct a misnomer, seeking to replace 'John Doe' with the moving defendant.

The court found that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiffs reasonably could have discovered the moving defendant's potential liability for delayed care.

Both the summary judgment motion and the misnomer cross-motion were dismissed, with the issues left to be determined by the trial judge.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for two counts of criminal harassment, arguing that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence by placing a higher burden on his testimony than on the complainant's.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge's reasons, which relied on the W.(D.) and J.J.R.D. frameworks for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt.

The court found that the trial judge properly instructed herself, gave considered reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence, and did not engage in uneven scrutiny.

The appeal was dismissed.