Howard Goldblatt

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been dismissed for alleged misconduct involving students.

The board argued the arbitrator applied an incorrectly high standard of proof, drew an unreasonable adverse inference, and improperly excluded similar fact evidence.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the application, finding that although the arbitrator misstated the law by referencing an intermediate standard of proof, a reading of the award as a whole demonstrated he actually applied the correct civil standard of a balance of probabilities.

The majority also found the arbitrator's treatment of the adverse inference and similar fact evidence was reasonable.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the application, concluding the arbitrator's misstatement of the standard of proof was a fatal error of law.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging age discrimination regarding the implementation of mandatory retirement at age 60 in the City of Mississauga Fire Service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications on consent, granted the Association intervenor status in two files where it was not named as a respondent, and established a schedule for further written submissions on the respondents' request for summary hearings in light of a recent Tribunal decision.

The applicant, a suppression firefighter, alleged age discrimination after being required to retire at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, arguing the application had no reasonable prospect of success based on a recent Tribunal decision that found mandatory retirement at age 60 for firefighters to be a bona fide occupational requirement.

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide evidence or a reasonable basis beyond speculation to suggest the result would be different from the established jurisprudence.

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

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

The parties agreed that a finding of professional misconduct was unlikely if the matter proceeded to a hearing.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, allowing the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing in exchange for the member's undertaking to immediately resign his membership, surrender his certificate, and never teach again or seek reinstatement.

The Committee found this resolution reasonable and in the public interest.

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

College counsel determined there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations and no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding of professional misconduct.

The member's counsel consented to the motion.

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

Andrew Peller Limited appealed a decision by the Grape Growers of Ontario to appoint a third-party inspector to resolve a dispute over the quality of grapes supplied by a producer.

The appellant argued that the referral was not timely and that the grapes had already been destroyed, making an inspection impossible.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicable 2010 Regulations did not impose a time limit for referring a dispute to an inspector, and that the inspector's role was to adjudicate the dispute, which could be done even if the grapes were no longer available for physical inspection.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought allegations of professional misconduct against a member for making inappropriate comments and employing physical discipline with students.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, admitting to verbal and physical abuse, and unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, required the member to complete a course in classroom management with an emphasis on positive discipline strategies, and directed publication of the decision without the member's name.

The complainant applied to be a firefighter with the City of Toronto and passed the physical fitness test.

However, during the pre-employment medical examination, the City's physician discovered the complainant had severe osteoarthritis in his knee, a condition the complainant had failed to disclose on his medical history form.

The City refused to hire him, citing both safety concerns related to his knee and his misrepresentation of his medical history.

The Tribunal found that the City discriminated against the complainant on the basis of perceived disability, as the medical evidence showed his knee was stable and he had no functional limitations that would prevent him from safely performing the job.

However, the Tribunal also found that the complainant had knowingly misrepresented his medical history, and that the City's reliance on this misrepresentation was a genuine, non-discriminatory reason for refusing to hire him.

As a result, the Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity but denied the complainant's requests for instatement and lost wages.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and reprisal following a workplace assault.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed four issues: a request to reconsider the removal of individual respondents, an intervention request by the Association, a request to strike untimely allegations, and a request to dismiss for no prima facie case.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, granted the intervention, clarified that older allegations were background only, and deferred ruling on the prima facie case issue, directing the City to file a Response.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision interpreting a regulation under the Education Act regarding teacher performance appraisals.

The arbitrator found that the regulation did not provide principals with unfettered discretion to conduct extra appraisals, and that being new to a school or division did not constitute 'circumstances' relating to performance under s.6(1).

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his workplace accommodation and access to training for a different position.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that the grievance settlement explicitly acknowledged the applicant was being accommodated in his current position, thereby resolving the substance of the human rights applications.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment against the City of Toronto, the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association, and various individuals.

The Association and its president sought to be removed as respondents.

The Tribunal granted their request, finding that the union's mere participation in the accommodation process or failure to take the same position as the employee does not constitute a Code violation.

The Tribunal also removed three personal respondents, two on consent and one due to a lack of substantive allegations, but declined to remove one personal respondent against whom specific allegations of personal misconduct were made.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for alleged sexual abuse and professional misconduct after a student stayed at his home and shared his bed.

The Discipline Committee found the student's testimony regarding sexual abuse to be inconsistent and unreliable, while the member's testimony was credible.

The Committee dismissed the allegations of sexual abuse.

However, the Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain professional boundaries by sharing a bed with the student, which contravened the standards of the profession.

The member was reprimanded and ordered to complete a course on professional boundaries.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that the Member, a Native studies teacher, sexually abused a student who stayed overnight at his home and engaged in professional misconduct by allowing the student to sleep in his bed.

The Discipline Committee found the student's testimony regarding sexual abuse lacked credibility and dismissed those allegations.

However, the Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain professional boundaries and standards, as allowing a visiting student to share his bed was inappropriate and contrary to societal norms.

The Member was reprimanded and ordered to complete a course on boundary violations.

The appellant, Hydro One Inc., appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Financial Services Tribunal order for a partial wind-up of its pension plan under s. 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.

Following a corporate merger, the employment of 73 Management Compensation Plan (MCP) employees was terminated.

The Tribunal used a 'subset analysis' to determine that a 'significant number' of plan members had been terminated, comparing the number of terminated MCP employees to the total number of active MCP plan members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 69(1)(d) permits a subset analysis in appropriate circumstances and that the Tribunal's application of this analysis was reasonable given that the merger intentionally targeted senior employees nearing retirement.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in extensive inappropriate personal communications with a student over two years, including terms of endearment and expressions of love.

The Member also failed to report the student's allegation of sexual touching by the Member's husband.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain professional boundaries, abusing a student emotionally, and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension (with one month postponed upon completion of an ethics course), and publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct for failing to report a student's disclosure of sexual touching by a colleague's husband.

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

The Committee ordered a reprimand, completion of a professional ethics course, and publication of the decision including the Member's name, emphasizing the egregious nature of failing to report suspected child abuse.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the assignment of teaching duties to principals and vice-principals.

The school board's assignment of these duties resulted in partial redundancies for some bargaining unit teachers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable.

The court held that section 287.1(1) of the Education Act unambiguously permits a school board to assign teaching duties to principals and vice-principals, and that such assignments did not constitute a declaration of redundancy under O. Reg. 90/98.

The applicant, a firefighter, alleged that his union and several of its officials discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to adequately represent him in his employment relations with the City of Mississauga following a workplace injury.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the respondents moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union treated the applicant unequally or based its representation decisions on discriminatory considerations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award interpreting a collective agreement provision regarding health benefits coverage.

The City brought a preliminary motion to quash the application for delay, which the court dismissed, finding no inordinate delay or prejudice.

On the merits, the court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision.

The court found that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the language of the collective agreement was unambiguous and correctly declined to admit extrinsic evidence.