Heather Alden

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found she made false reports of abuse against a fellow teacher and revoked her teaching certificate.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the Committee's factual findings or credibility assessments.

The court also upheld the penalty of revocation, finding it fell within the range of reasonable outcomes given the serious nature of falsely accusing a colleague of abuse.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct relating to boundary violations with a female student.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of failing to maintain the standards of the profession, unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

The Discipline Committee accepted the uncontested facts, which detailed the member providing his personal contact information to the student, having her visit his apartment, and driving her in his personal vehicle.

The Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month retroactive suspension, and the completion of a boundary violation course.

The Committee also ordered that the member's name be published in the College's official publication to serve as a specific and general deterrent and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

The applicant alleged age discrimination under the Human Rights Code after his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found unconstitutional.

Two teachers' unions, OECTA and ETFO, sought intervenor status to address the constitutional issues.

The respondent and the Attorney General requested limitations on their participation, including a requirement to act jointly.

The Tribunal granted the unions full intervenor status without the requested limitations, finding that their perspectives on the administration of benefits and the impact on older workers would assist the Tribunal in this significant constitutional challenge.

The applicant alleged that the respondent school board breached the Human Rights Code on the basis of age when his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found to be unconstitutional.

The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) requested to intervene in the constitutional challenge.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that OCUFA has a significant interest in the issues and will make a special contribution to the case given its longstanding advocacy regarding mandatory retirement and the rights of faculty working past age 65.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The respondents disputed that the grievance process was complete.

Following a Case Assessment Direction, the applicant's union confirmed that the grievance had been withdrawn.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application and directed the respondents to file their responses.

Following the dismissal of an application that was found to be without merit, the applicant and the respondent union both sought costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs, noting the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The respondent union was awarded costs fixed at $12,000, payable by the applicant.

During a hearing, a witness who was a union local president refused to identify teachers who had shared information with him, claiming privilege over communications between union members and a union representative.

The Tribunal applied the Wigmore criteria and found that the communications did not originate in a confidence that they would not be disclosed, as the witness had already shared general information about the communications with a Board investigator.

The Tribunal ordered the witness to re-attend and answer questions regarding the identity of the members and the content of their communications.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring it to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees under the collective bargaining agreement.

The Divisional Court determined that the appropriate standard of review for the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was patent unreasonableness.

Finding that the arbitrator's conclusion was not patently unreasonable, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union for failing to file a grievance after she was injured at work and no suitable accommodated position was found.

At the consultation hearing, the union agreed to file a grievance regarding the employer's duty to accommodate, and the employer agreed not to raise timeliness objections.

The Board ordered the union to file the grievance immediately and adjourned the complaint for up to one year, declining the applicant's request to hire her own representative at this stage.

The applicant employer assigned the maintenance, repair, and inspection of a newly installed Pfaff screw hoist to millwrights from the ATU.

The IAM disputed this assignment, claiming the work based on past practice with a previous hoist.

The Board found that both unions had members qualified to do the work and that past practice was mixed.

Ultimately, the Board upheld the employer's assignment to the ATU, finding it justified by economy and efficiency considerations, including the ATU members' prior experience with similar hoists and a shared management structure.

The Board issued an amended and corrected decision regarding a jurisdictional dispute between the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Lodge 235 over work assigned by the Toronto Transit Commission.

The decision corrected the panel composition from a previous decision.

The Board confirmed that it would not change the assignment of the work in dispute, declaring that the work belongs to the ATU.

The Toronto Transit Commission brought a jurisdictional dispute concerning the assignment of work on a new sandblasting machine at the Hillcrest shop.

The work was assigned to the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, but the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Lodge 235 claimed the work should have gone to its members.

The Board considered factors including past practice, economy, and efficiency.

The Board found that employer preference, economy, and efficiency favoured the assignment to the ATU members, as taking the work from them would disrupt an integrated production process and increase costs.

The Board upheld the assignment of the work to the ATU.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer terminated four employees because they acted as inside organizers for the union.

The employer claimed the terminations were part of a normal course layoff due to restructuring and performance issues.

During the hearing, the employer sought to call a witness in reply to contradict the union's evidence, which the Board denied as improper case-splitting.

Applying the reverse onus under section 91(5) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board found the employer failed to establish that the decision to terminate the four organizers was free of anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the immediate reinstatement of the employees with full compensation.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that the union's organizing campaign was tainted by the involvement of managerial employees and by material misrepresentations made by a union organizer regarding employees' ability to withdraw their membership.

The Board held that the managerial employees were acting contrary to the employer's interests, which did not trigger the statutory bar to certification or cast doubt on the voluntariness of the membership evidence.

The Board also found that the union organizer did not make the alleged misrepresentations.

The Board certified the union based on the documentary evidence of membership.