Howard Goldblatt

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision that declared provisions of Bill 5 (Better Local Government Act, 2018) unconstitutional for violating freedom of expression rights under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 5 reduced Toronto's municipal wards from 47 to 25 mid-election.

The application judge found that the mid-campaign change substantially interfered with candidates' ability to communicate their political messages and violated voters' right to effective representation.

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of the lower court's order pending appeal, finding a strong likelihood that the application judge erred in law and that the appeal would succeed.

The court held that Bill 5 does not limit or restrict candidates' messages and that the right to effective representation falls under s. 3 (democratic rights), not s. 2(b) (freedom of expression), and s. 3 does not apply to municipal elections.

The province enacted Bill 5, reducing Toronto wards from 47 to 25, mid-municipal election.

Applicants challenged its constitutionality.

The court found Bill 5 violated candidates' and voters' freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as it substantially interfered with campaign communication and denied effective representation due to increased ward sizes.

The violation was not justified under s. 1, as the legislative objectives (better decision-making, voter parity) were not pressing and substantial enough to warrant mid-election implementation, nor was minimal impairment demonstrated.

The impugned provisions were declared unconstitutional and set aside, requiring the election to proceed with 47 wards.

The applicant City sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award that reduced the penalty imposed on two firefighters for off-duty impaired driving convictions.

The firefighters had lost their driver's licenses and were demoted for one year by the City.

The arbitrator substituted a two-day suspension, finding the demotions were disciplinary and the firefighters could still perform their core duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's exercise of discretion to substitute the penalty was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitral award that dismissed a grievance regarding the calculation of retirement gratuities for employees working less than 12 months per year.

The arbitrator found the employer's method of dividing yearly earnings in half to determine the six-month cap was reasonable and consistent with the Municipal Act paradigm referenced in the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation fell within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age and disability, as well as reprisal, after being removed from the supply list for refusing an independent medical examination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination and reprisal claims as having no reasonable prospect of success, but allowed the disability discrimination claim to proceed.

The Union was also granted intervenor status.

Two teachers appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The Committee had found them guilty for failing to 'immediately' notify the parents of a 16-year-old student who reported being sexually assaulted by other students during a school trip to Boston.

The Divisional Court quashed the Committee's decision, finding it unreasonable.

The Court held that the Committee erred by failing to identify any professional standard, misapprehending the law on standard of care and in loco parentis, improperly taking judicial notice of a 'notorious' standard, ignoring the student's rights, and failing to consider the teachers' good faith exercise of professional judgment in a complex situation.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability in teacher placements, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues in writing.

The Tribunal restricted the intervenor union's participation to matters affecting its members' interests.

The Tribunal also ordered both the respondent school board and the intervenor to produce all arguably relevant documents pertaining to the applicant's assignments for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, noting that privacy concerns regarding third-party names in staffing documents are adequately protected by the implied undertaking rule in Rule 3.3.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member set out in the Notice of Hearing.

The College indicated there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding the withdrawal reasonable, appropriate, and in the public interest.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim decision finding that the employer breached the collective agreement by denying an employee union representation during investigative meetings.

The union brought a motion to quash the application as premature, arguing the grievance on the merits had not yet been decided.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the ongoing administrative proceedings.

The application for judicial review was quashed as premature.

The respondent requested early dismissal of an age discrimination application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were resolved in a group grievance settlement between the respondent and the affected party union.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant received no benefit from the settlement and did not expressly adopt it.

The respondent was directed to file its response.

The Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for failing to disclose his 1995 Florida criminal convictions for child abuse and battery on his College application and subsequent school board employment applications.

He also made inappropriate comments to a special needs student and the student's parents.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension of his teaching certificate, and the completion of a professional ethics course.

The applicant, a firefighter, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his eligibility for post-retirement benefits under a collective agreement.

The terms of the collective agreement had been determined by a Board of Arbitration following an interest arbitration.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Board of Arbitration had jurisdiction to apply the Code, appropriately dealt with the substance of the dispute, and that the application constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award.

The Member, a teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct for falsifying employment applications to conceal a prior criminal discharge and termination, and for intentionally tripping a student and making a derogatory comment.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-year suspension of her teaching certificate, completion of a professional ethics course, and publication of the decision with the Member's name, rejecting the Member's request for publication without name given her repeated pattern of dishonesty and abuse.

The applicants, suppression firefighters, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their age discrimination applications.

The applicants challenged the mandatory retirement age of 60, arguing the employer failed to accommodate them by not engaging in individualized testing for cardiac risk.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably relied on established precedent that mandatory retirement for firefighters is a bona fide occupational requirement, and that the applicants failed to provide the necessary individualized medical evidence of extremely low cardiac risk to trigger the narrow exception for accommodation.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct after using derogatory language towards a special needs student regarding his use of an assistive device.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, completion of a course on classroom management and sensitivity, and publication of the decision with the Member's name, noting that the reprimand must be recorded on the Register to serve as a deterrent.

The applicant alleged age discrimination regarding his entitlement to early retirement benefits under an Interest Arbitration Board decision.

The Toronto Professional Firefighters' Association requested to intervene, which was granted as unopposed.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, lack of jurisdiction, or because the substance was appropriately dealt with by the Interest Arbitration Board.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that the Member, a teacher, committed professional misconduct by using physical force to direct and drag two students on separate occasions.

The Discipline Committee found that the College failed to prove the allegations.

Regarding the first incident, no direct evidence was presented.

Regarding the second incident, the Committee found that the Member used force to manage a student who posed a potential threat to himself and others, but the force was not excessive and did not result in any injuries.

The allegations of professional misconduct were dismissed.

The applicant, a suppression firefighter, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his age discrimination complaint regarding mandatory retirement at age 60.

The Tribunal had dismissed the complaint under Rule 19A, finding no reasonable prospect of success based on a previous test case (Espey) that upheld the mandatory retirement provision as a bona fide occupational requirement.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, as the applicant failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the result in his case would differ from the established precedent.

The applicants, a group of firefighters, alleged age discrimination after being required to retire at age 60.

They argued that the respondents failed to accommodate them by not developing an individual testing regime to assess their cardiac risk, relying on an exception discussed in previous jurisprudence.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to develop a testing regime upon a general request, and the applicants had not presented evidence of an exceptionally low cardiac risk to trigger an individual exception.

The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a firefighter, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming that the strict application of the collective agreement prevented him from achieving the rank of Captain in the Operations Division.

Due to a disability, the applicant had transferred to the Training Division in 2000.

Under the collective agreement, candidates for Captain in Operations required two years of recent service in Operations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not forced to transfer out of Operations and ought to have reasonably known or inquired about his potential to remain in Operations indefinitely while being accommodated.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the applications.