Howard Goldblatt

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct involving inappropriate physical contact and verbal comments toward students.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession, physical abuse, and conduct unbecoming a member.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, completion of a course on appropriate boundaries, and publication of the decision in summary form without the member's name.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including using inappropriate language, making negative and racialized comments, and making inappropriate physical contact with students.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The penalty included a reprimand, a requirement to complete a course on appropriate boundaries, and publication of the summary without the member's name.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing human rights complaints regarding mandatory retirement for firefighters.

The Commission argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and its own policy on disability and the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Commission was attempting to re-litigate issues already fully argued and that there was no established jurisprudence on the specific issues decided.

The Tribunal also noted that the Commission had not raised its policy during the original hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Labour's delegate to revoke a prior order that authorized a multi-site joint health and safety committee for the respondent school board.

The applicants argued the delegate failed to consider statutory criteria, exercise discretion properly, and provide procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delegate's decision was a discretionary administrative decision akin to public policy, owed significant deference, and was reasonable given the committee's dysfunction.

The member, an occasional teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct for inappropriately touching students on multiple occasions while attempting to redirect them, despite previous warnings and a classroom management course.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, completion of a course on appropriate boundaries, and publication of the decision with the member's name.

The complainant, a former District Chief in the London Fire Department, alleged that the mandatory retirement age of 60 for suppression firefighters, negotiated in the collective agreement, constituted age discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents conceded prima facie discrimination but argued the provision was a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) due to the increased risk of cardiac events with age.

The Tribunal applied the Meiorin test and found that the respondents had justified the standard.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the risk of cardiac events for firefighters is significant and increases with age, and that there is currently no individualized risk analysis for firefighters that is more accurate than using age alone.

The Tribunal also gave weight to the fact that the provision was negotiated by the union and employer to address health and safety concerns while providing an unreduced pension at age 60.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Member, an elementary school teacher, pleaded guilty in criminal court to stealing a credit card from a colleague and using it to fraudulently purchase merchandise.

Following her criminal conviction, the Ontario College of Teachers brought professional misconduct charges.

The Member pleaded no contest and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a suspension of her teaching certificate until June 30, 2009, and publication of the decision in summary form without her name.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision certifying the plaintiffs as representative plaintiffs in a class action.

The motion for leave to appeal was denied with costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $35,280.51, while the defendant argued for $5,000.

The court found the plaintiffs' claim excessive but the defendant's proposal insufficient, considering the $11 to $16 million at issue, the historical context of the pension surplus, and the complexity of the issues.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 inclusive.

The Society of Energy Professionals brought a motion to correct an alleged misstatement in the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the partial wind up of the Hydro One Pension Plan.

The Tribunal accepted that it had misunderstood counsel's position during argument and agreed to correct the decision.

The Tribunal also corrected a typographical error, replacing the word 'interlocutory' with 'interrogatory'.

The applicant teachers' federation sought a stay of a Minister of Labour order pending judicial review.

The order revoked a previous designation allowing a multi-site joint Health and Safety Committee, requiring the school board to establish site-based committees at each of its 94 schools.

Applying the RJR Macdonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried, but the applicant failed to demonstrate clear and non-speculative irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the respondent school board, as the multi-site system was not working and impeded its ability to comply with health and safety obligations.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying accidental death and 'killed in the line of duty' benefits to the estate of a firefighter who died of renal cancer caused by occupational exposure to toxic substances.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's application of common law insurance principles to conclude the death was not accidental was incorrect and rendered the decision patently unreasonable.

The Court found that the firefighter's death from an occupational illness was unexpected and not caused solely by natural causes, thus qualifying as an accidental death and occurring in the line of duty.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the employer was ordered to pay the benefits.

The Member pleaded no contest to professional misconduct for failing to adhere to a 'hands off' policy when she yelled at, held the wrists of, and pulled a crying student toward her, causing the student to vomit.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand to be recorded on the register and publication of the summary without the Member's name, finding this was an isolated incident of a relatively minor nature.

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

The member consented to the withdrawal.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, noting that the member's teaching certificate had already been revoked in a previous proceeding, making the withdrawal reasonable and in the public interest.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an arbitral award.

The arbitrator found that the employer was required under the collective agreement to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable.

The court held that the reference to 'cost' in the agreement embraced the Ontario Health Premium, regardless of whether it represented 100 per cent of the cost of medicare.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct.

The member admitted to inappropriately raising her voice and using inappropriate force in disciplining two students.

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

The Committee ordered a reprimand, publication of the decision, and imposed terms on the member's certificate requiring successful completion of courses in classroom management and anger management, failing which her certificate would be suspended.

The City of Hamilton applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that the City was required 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 was patent unreasonableness, as the arbitrator was interpreting the collective agreement, not the legislation.

The Court found the arbitrator's conclusion that the premium constituted a 'cost' of the medicare plan under the agreement was not patently unreasonable, and would have been upheld even on a correctness standard.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The employer laid off seniority employees and later proposed to recall them as seasonal employees at a lower wage rate, without the benefits accorded to seniority employees.

An arbitrator ruled that the employer could do so under the collective agreement's management rights clause, characterizing 'seasonal employee' as a job classification.

The Divisional Court quashed the award.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the standard of review for an Ontario labour arbitrator interpreting a collective agreement remains patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's decision was patently unreasonable because 'seasonal employee' is an employment status, not a classification, and the collective agreement did not permit stripping recalled seniority employees of their acquired rights.

The member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for inappropriately touching students by patting their buttocks.

The member pled no contest to the facts, acknowledging the touching was intended as encouragement but failed to respect physical boundaries and caused discomfort.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered terms and conditions on the member's certificate, including the completion of a course on appropriate boundaries for physical contact with primary-aged children.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision assigning the teaching of the Life and Learning Skills program for students aged 14 and older in secondary schools to members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

The applicant argued the work should belong to elementary teachers because the academic content was at the primary level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB correctly interpreted the Education Act by considering the physical location, educational purpose, and body of pupils, and reasonably applied labour relations principles to conclude the work belonged to secondary school teachers.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a job posting following municipal amalgamation.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator erred in interpreting s. 33(3) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, as that section only applies after notice to bargain a first collective agreement has been given.

The court found that the incumbent was not a member of the bargaining unit and his employment was governed by his contract of employment.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted to a newly constituted board of arbitration.