Joshua Phillips

The plaintiff employer brought an action seeking disgorgement of board allowance payments allegedly mistakenly paid to the defendant, a former employee, under a collective agreement.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose under the collective agreement and that an arbitrator had the power to award damages against a former employee.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being terminated from her position as a probationary Student Support Person.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the OLRB and Tribunal proceedings raise different issues, involve different parties, and offer different potential remedies.

The Tribunal granted the union's request for intervenor status, noting its interest in the allegations and potential remedies.

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 allegations in exchange for the Member's undertaking to resign, never seek reinstatement, and never teach again in Ontario.

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

A member of a limousine drivers’ co‑operative brought an application under the Co‑operative Corporations Act seeking an order compelling the co‑operative to enforce its by‑law disqualifying members who held interests in competing airport limousine services.

Certain respondents had acquired shares in a holding company that owned a competing limousine operator.

The court held that the by‑law governing membership qualifications was validly enacted and that members were estopped from challenging its validity after years of operating under it.

However, the provision purporting to automatically terminate membership upon breach was inconsistent with the statute, which requires expulsion by board resolution after due process.

The court directed that the board may disqualify members with interests in the competing company following proper procedures but dismissed the application against a respondent who had divested his shares.

The applicant, a police officer working past age 65, alleged age discrimination regarding the loss of group health benefits, reduction in life insurance, and pressure to retire.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning the benefit and insurance plans, finding that the differential treatment for employees over 65 complies with the Employment Standards Act and is therefore protected by s. 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations of age-related harassment and pressure to retire, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.

The City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Police Association were removed as respondents.

The member, a secondary school teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct involving inappropriate relationships and sexual abuse of four male students over a four-year period.

The Discipline Committee accepted the uncontested facts and found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

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, citing the egregious nature of the conduct, the serial pattern of abuse, and the need for general deterrence and transparency.

The parties advised the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that they had reached a settlement of all outstanding issues.

The Tribunal ordered that the proceeding be terminated.

The member, a teacher, faced a discipline hearing for professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a student.

The member engaged in inappropriate electronic communications of a personal and sexual nature with a female student, made inappropriate suggestions to other students, and participated in 'spooning' with students during a school trip.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

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

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a 12-month suspension (with a portion postponed if certain conditions are met), and terms including the completion of a boundary course and a psychiatric assessment.

The Committee also ordered the publication of the member's name, finding that the severity of the misconduct outweighed the mitigating factors.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member, as it was highly unlikely the member would be found guilty.

With the consent of the parties and advice from independent legal counsel, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against his former employer, the school board, and his union.

The school board and union argued the application was untimely and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the alleged discrimination by the school board well over a year before filing the application, and that his delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case against the union, as there was no evidence that the union's handling of his grievance was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The Ministry of Correctional Services and a non-party intervenor requested a publication ban on portions of an investigation report and minutes of settlement produced in the proceeding, citing privacy and the integrity of confidential settlements.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding insufficient evidence to override the strong public interest in open hearings and the need for transparent decision-making.

However, the Tribunal granted a request to redact the home addresses of Ministry personnel from the exhibits due to safety concerns.

The complainant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal state a case for contempt to the Divisional Court against the respondent Ministry for failing to disclose documents.

The Ministry objected to the intervenor union (OPSEU) participating in the contempt motion, arguing it fell outside the scope of their limited intervenor standing.

The Tribunal ruled that OPSEU may make submissions, as the alleged refusal to implement systemic remedies directly impacts its members and the union can provide valuable perspective on the Ministry-wide impact of the Tribunal's exercise of discretion.

The Ministry brought a motion requesting the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing the complainant's contempt motion, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ministry argued that the adjudicator had prejudged the contempt issue by stating in a prior interim decision that the Ministry had failed to disclose relevant documents in a timely way.

The adjudicator dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the impugned statement was a factual observation regarding late disclosure, not a prejudgment of whether the non-disclosure was wilful or contemptuous.

The adjudicator concluded that a reasonable, informed person would not apprehend bias.

The Ministry of Correctional Services brought an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal order requiring the production of settlement documentation.

The respondent employee sought the documents to prove the Ministry failed to implement previously ordered remedies for workplace racial discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicator correctly ordered production because the documents were relevant and necessary to address a compelling interest of justice, falling within an exception to settlement privilege.

The complainant sought the production of minutes of settlement of grievances relating to three substantiated Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention policy complaints.

The respondent Ministry argued the documents were protected by settlement privilege.

The Tribunal held that settlement privilege must be established on a case-by-case basis using the Wigmore criteria, rather than as a prima facie class privilege.

The Tribunal found the Ministry failed to establish that the harm caused by disclosure outweighed the benefit to the correct disposal of the litigation.

Even if a prima facie privilege applied, the Tribunal found that an exception was warranted because disclosure was necessary for the attainment of an overriding interest of justice.

The Ministry was ordered to produce the settlement agreements.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for engaging in inappropriate physical and verbal interactions with several female students.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering the member to receive counselling, complete a course on appropriate boundaries, and directing publication of the decision in summary form without the member's name.

The complainant requested the Tribunal to reconvene to address the Ministry's alleged failure to comply with previous orders.

The Ministry objected, arguing a lack of particulars and asserting that the complainant must lead evidence first to establish a prima facie case of non-compliance.

The Ministry also questioned the Tribunal's jurisdiction to enforce the orders.

The Tribunal held that it retained supervisory jurisdiction to ensure the implementation of its orders.

It found that sufficient particulars were provided for the initial issues raised.

Given the Ministry's control over the relevant information and the protracted history of the proceedings, the Tribunal exercised its procedural discretion to order the Ministry to present its evidence first.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been terminated for professional misconduct involving special needs students.

The arbitration board found the teacher's conduct warranted a significant disciplinary response but not termination, effectively imposing a four-and-a-half-year suspension without pay.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's decision to give the teacher a second chance fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was supported by the evidence.

The applicant teacher sought judicial review of a decision by the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers to refer a complaint of professional misconduct to the Discipline Committee.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness due to insufficient particulars regarding allegations of inappropriate interactions with male students.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Investigation Committee is a screening body owed a limited duty of fairness, and that the applicant had received reasonable information about the allegations as required by the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

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

With the consent of the parties and pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee authorized the withdrawal of the allegations without a hearing.