Jennifer Micallef

The Employer brought a motion to strike specific paragraphs of the Union's Statement of Particulars on the basis that they contained allegations that were not properly particularized.

The Arbitrator reviewed the challenged paragraphs to determine whether they provided sufficient information (the 'when', 'where', 'how', and 'who') for the Employer to know the case it had to meet.

The Arbitrator struck several sentences and portions of paragraphs that were vague or lacked necessary details, while declining to strike others where the context or inferences provided sufficient particularity.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board to resolve remaining issues pertaining to Minutes of Settlement regarding vacation credits for seasonal employees.

The Arbitrator, remaining seized of the matter, ordered the Union to provide an exhaustive list of additional bargaining unit employees alleged to be captured by the agreement.

The Employer was ordered to review the list and provide explanations for any denials, with the parties to reconvene to determine any disputed entitlements.

In a grievance alleging failure to accommodate, the employer brought a motion for the production of the clinical notes of the grievor's treating medical professionals.

The union opposed the request, arguing the notes were not relevant and the request was overly broad.

The arbitrator granted the employer's motion, finding that by relying on the medical reports, the union opened the door to the production of the underlying clinical notes.

The arbitrator ordered the production of the relevant clinical notes subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct including failing to document a patient's visit, failing to arrange a physician assessment for a suicidal patient, and communicating inappropriately with colleagues and a patient's family.

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

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and that her conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, though not disgraceful.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order regarding grievances filed by Ambulance Communication Officers at the Central Ambulance Communication Centre in Oshawa.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to confirm the participation of three representative grievors or identify new ones, and established a timeline for the Union to identify the shifts and dates for which production is required.

Grievors who decline to participate will have their grievances dismissed.

The Union sought production of note books kept by the grievor during his employment as a correctional officer.

The Employer agreed to produce them provided restrictions were imposed, similar to a previous order regarding log books, to prevent the grievor from publicly discussing his allegations of harassment and discrimination.

The Arbitrator ordered production subject to specific restrictions, noting that the deemed undertaking applies to the produced documents but does not extend to information the grievor already possessed before receiving the productions.

The Employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs of the Union's statement of particulars for being insufficiently particularized.

The Union argued it needed production of log books before finalizing particulars.

The Union also sought production of the grievor's note books, which the Employer agreed to produce subject to restrictions.

The Arbitrator issued an interim order setting a schedule for the production of documents, including log books and note books, and the subsequent provision of final particulars by the Union, with a conference call scheduled to address any remaining objections.

In a grievance arbitration, the parties raised several preliminary issues regarding document production and the striking of particulars.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce unredacted log books subject to strict confidentiality conditions, and ordered the grievor to return Ministry notebooks.

The arbitrator declined the employer's request to strike paragraphs of the union's particulars that detailed events occurring after the grievance was filed, finding that the post-grievance events were potentially relevant to establishing a pattern of harassment and assessing damages.

The Member, an administrator at a private hospital, admitted to professional misconduct for scheduling and permitting her sister to work as a Registered Practical Nurse while her certificate of registration was suspended.

The Member also failed to report this unsafe practice to the College.

The Discipline Committee found the conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a three-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and terms requiring meetings with a regulatory expert.

The employer brought a motion arguing that certain aspects of two grievances filed by the union were untimely.

The union argued the issues were part of a continuing grievance regarding accommodation and discrimination, or alternatively, that time limits should be extended.

The arbitrator found that the specific employer decisions grieved were discrete acts subject to the 30-day time limit, not a continuing violation.

The arbitrator declined to extend the time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, finding no reasonable grounds for the delay, despite the lack of prejudice to the employer.

The appellant Crown appealed the acquittal of a high school teacher charged with voyeurism under s. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code after he used a concealed pen-camera to surreptitiously record female students engaged in ordinary school activities in common areas of the school.

The majority of the Court of Appeal had upheld the acquittal on the basis that the students were not in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and entered a conviction, holding that circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy under s. 162(1) are circumstances in which a person would reasonably expect not to be the subject of the type of observation or recording that in fact occurred, taking into account the entire context.

The majority (Wagner C.J.) adopted a multi-factor contextual test informed by s. 8 Charter jurisprudence, while a concurring minority (Rowe J.) proposed a conjunctive test requiring both loss of control over one's image and infringement of sexual integrity.

The Employer brought a motion to consolidate two sets of grievances (the Cody grievances and the MacDonald grievances) that arose from the same series of events involving alleged workplace harassment and assault.

The Union opposed the motion, arguing that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to consolidate the grievances because another arbitrator was already seized with the MacDonald grievances.

The arbitrator held that, as a roster arbitrator acting as the Grievance Settlement Board, she had the jurisdiction to consolidate the grievances under the Board's Rules of Procedure, because the Board is a single entity.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the grievances involved common factual issues and should be heard together to avoid conflicting rulings and ensure efficiency.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its counsel was inadvertently double-booked.

The Union opposed the request, arguing that the matter had already been delayed and that the Employer could assign a different lawyer.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, noting that the underlying grievance regarding temporary higher pay was not time-sensitive, the scheduling error was inadvertent, and the assigned counsel had already invested time in the file and settlement discussions.

The hearing was rescheduled with a delay of only six days.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing on April 18, 2018, but the Employer advised it would bring a motion to consolidate the grievances of another employee, whose counsel was unavailable.

The arbitrator used the date for case management.

The arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the CSOI Investigation Report to the Union and scheduled the motion to consolidate, along with any potential motion to stay proceedings pending a criminal trial, for June 26, 2018.

In a grievance concerning a request for disability accommodation, the Arbitrator issued an interim decision directing the Union to provide full written particulars of the grievor's asserted disability.

The Union was also directed to produce all relevant documentation, including medical records detailing any restrictions or limitations on the grievor's ability to return to work.

The Employer was directed to respond in writing setting out its position prior to the continuation of the hearing.

The grievance of Marcia Williams was adjourned on consent of the parties.

The adjournment is pending the provision of medical confirmation from the grievor's physician that she is fit to proceed with a hearing or mediated settlement discussions.

The medical confirmation must be provided no later than 30 days prior to the continuation date.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of his wife at his second trial, following a hung jury at his first trial.

The appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge erred in law by refusing to remove trial counsel from the record when counsel sought removal on grounds of ethical concerns and breakdown of the client-solicitor relationship.

The trial judge's refusal to grant the removal application created an appearance of unfairness and constituted a miscarriage of justice, requiring a new trial.

The court also addressed several other grounds of appeal relating to the admissibility of third-party suspect evidence, demeanour evidence, police officer opinion evidence, and hearsay statements, providing guidance for the retrial.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision regarding grievances filed by Ambulance Communication Officers at the Central Ambulance Communication Centre in Oshawa.

Noting that the issues had not yet crystallized, the Arbitrator ordered the parties to address and resolve matters relating to interim grievances, particulars, productions, and the identification of issues by January 19, 2018, after which a teleconference would be scheduled.

A high school teacher was acquitted at trial of voyeurism contrary to s. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code after using a camera pen to surreptitiously record videos of female students focusing on their chests and cleavage.

The Crown appealed the acquittal on three grounds: whether the trial judge erred in finding no sexual purpose; whether evidence from a warrantless search should have been admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter; and whether the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The majority (Feldman and Watt JJ.A.) allowed the Crown's appeal on the sexual purpose issue but dismissed it on the privacy issue, finding that students in public areas of a school do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Huscroft J.A. dissented, arguing the students did have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The Member, a teacher, faced a discipline hearing following a criminal conviction for assaulting a vulnerable student.

The Member had invited the student to his home, offered him money, and made sexual advances.

The Member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including physical and psychological abuse of a student.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and publication of the decision with his name.