Jennifer Micallef

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim procedural ruling that issued a summons compelling the production of a Wagg brief in a grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that it is premature to judicially review interlocutory decisions of administrative decision-makers.

The court found that the arbitrator has the authority to rule on her own jurisdiction and procedural matters, and that fragmenting the arbitration process would frustrate legislative goals.

The applicant moved to quash an amended preferred indictment adding a sexual assault count extending beyond the complainant's eighteenth birthday, and sought a stay for abuse of process.

The court held that evidence at the preliminary inquiry, particularly cross-examination about the pool incident chronology, could support a finding that the alleged assault occurred when the complainant was an adult, thereby permitting the added count under s. 574(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

While the defence established some potential prejudice because questioning had proceeded on the premise that only underage conduct was in issue, the court found no improper Crown motive and no basis for the exceptional remedy of a stay.

The availability of further cross-examination and a renewed third party records application adequately addressed any prejudice.

The College brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the Member, as there was no evidence to support them and no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding.

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

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a student.

The Member exchanged over 50 emails with the student over the summer, met with her outside of school, and continued to spend time alone with her despite warnings from colleagues and a request from the student's mother to stop.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission on penalty, ordering a six-month suspension, a reprimand, and the completion of a boundaries course.

The Committee also ordered publication of the decision with the Member's name, rejecting the Member's argument that publication would identify the student or adversely affect his family.

The applicant local unions sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board finding that the international union had just cause to merge them with another local.

The applicants challenged the Board's use of a consultation process rather than a full hearing, and its refusal to order production of a specific report.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's choice of process was within reasonable expectations given its expertise.

Although the Court criticized the Board's failure to order production of the report, it declined to quash the decision, finding the merger was supported by an independent expert's unqualified recommendation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Member, a secondary school teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in inappropriate electronic communications of a sexual nature with three students and having physical sexual contact with a fourth student.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate.

Despite the Member's request for anonymity, the Committee ordered the publication of the decision with the Member's name, emphasizing the need for transparency, specific and general deterrence, and the maintenance of public trust.

The Member, a teacher, pled no contest to allegations of professional misconduct stemming from a sexual relationship with a student.

The Member had previously been convicted of sexual exploitation under the Criminal Code and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a student.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate.

The Committee also ordered the publication of the decision with the Member's name, finding that the criminal publication ban protected the student's identity but did not extend to prohibiting the publication of the Member's name.

The appellant, who had been subjected to years of coercive control and psychological abuse by her husband, stabbed him to death while he slept.

At trial, the jury acquitted her of murder but convicted her of manslaughter, and she was sentenced to eight years in prison.

She appealed the conviction, arguing self-defence should have been left to the jury, and appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no air of reality to the self-defence claim as she did not apprehend imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in minimizing the mitigating impact of the psychological abuse and mischaracterizing the offence as a 'near murder'.

The sentence was reduced to time served (approximately three years).