Kate A. Hughes

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed her complaint against her union, the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA).

The applicant alleged the ONA failed in its duty to accommodate her disability.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, as neither the employer nor the union knew of the disability prior to termination, and the employer subsequently refused to consider reinstatement.

The court confirmed that a union cannot be found to impede accommodation efforts when the employer makes no such efforts.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against four long-term care (LTC) facilities experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, alleging breaches of Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Directives regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control.

The ONA contended that the facilities failed to provide necessary PPE, particularly N95 masks, and implement appropriate administrative controls like isolating and cohorting residents and staff.

The facilities argued they complied with directives and that the ONA sought control over scarce resources.

The court found that the matter, though a labour dispute, required the court's inherent jurisdiction due to the inability to expedite arbitral processes.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm to nurses and residents.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, prioritizing health and safety.

The court ordered the LTC facilities to provide nurses with access to N95 respirators and other appropriate PPE based on point-of-care assessment and to implement administrative controls as per CMOH Directives.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of a nurse who misappropriated narcotics from the respondent hospital.

The arbitrator found that the nurse was addicted to narcotics and would not have engaged in the misconduct 'but for' her addiction, yet dismissed the grievance.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the arbitrator unreasonably applied an outdated legal test for prima facie discrimination rather than the established three-part test confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The award was set aside and the grievance remitted to a new arbitrator.

The Ontario Nurses' Association appealed a Divisional Court decision that had set aside an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement between the ONA and Toronto East General Hospital.

The dispute arose from the Hospital's closure of beds in a unit, which reduced available work hours for regular part-time nurses.

The Hospital spread the reduction across all part-time nurses without regard to seniority.

The arbitrator found this constituted a lay-off triggering the collective agreement's lay-off provisions, which require seniority-based reductions.

The Divisional Court reversed, finding the arbitrator's decision internally inconsistent and contrary to the collective agreement's terms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's interpretation reasonable and consistent with the collective agreement's language and purpose.

The Member, a retired teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in inappropriate physical contact with multiple female students while coaching a school team.

The Member admitted to the facts, including touching students' legs, shoulders, and faces, and pulling a student by her shirt.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Penalty, the Committee ordered a written reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the successful completion of a course on boundary violations should he return to teaching.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced disciplinary proceedings for discontinuing a client's life support without medical authorization and failing to document the responsible physician's refusal to authorize the discontinuation.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension, and the imposition of terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several preliminary issues raised by the parties.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application to add further reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's requests to exclude the respondents' instructing client and another officer from the hearing room, subject to conditions.

The respondents' request to dismiss certain allegations and their objection to the applicant's expert witness were denied, while they were granted an extension to call their own expert witness.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sexual harassment and reprisal sought production of documents from a related police disciplinary hearing.

The respondents argued the documents were inadmissible under the statutory privilege in s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal held that a human rights proceeding is a 'civil proceeding' within the meaning of s. 83(8), departing from previous Tribunal decisions.

Consequently, the requested disciplinary documents were subject to an absolute statutory bar and were inadmissible, with the exception of the initial complaint made by the Chief of Police.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order establishing a schedule for the Employee Screening Tool subcommittee process pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.

The order mandates monthly meetings commencing in September 2016 to discuss the tool's implementation for each ministry, starting with Community Safety and Correctional Services, Attorney General, and Natural Resources and Forestry.

The Vice-Chair remains seized with the implementation of the Agreement and the hearing of the grievances should the subcommittee discussions prove fruitless.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation file regarding the applicant's complaint.

The SIU opposed production of the Director's Report, an FOI request, and witness statements.

The Tribunal ordered the SIU to produce the witness statements, finding them arguably relevant to credibility and outweighing confidentiality concerns.

The Tribunal declined to order production of the Director's Report and FOI request, finding them not arguably relevant to the human rights proceeding.

In an interim decision following a case management meeting, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondents to produce certain emails and texts concerning the applicant up to the date of the Application.

The Tribunal declined to order production of documents created after the Application date, noting the applicant must first seek permission to amend her Application to add allegations of continuing reprisals.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to make submissions on whether s. 83(8) of the Police Services Act precludes the production of documents from a related disciplinary proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer (CAMH), her union (ONA), and a psychiatrist (Dr. Klassen) on multiple grounds including race, sex, age, disability, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations against ONA and Dr. Klassen, and all allegations against CAMH except those relating to disability accommodation and termination, finding the dismissed allegations lacked evidence linking the respondents' conduct to Code grounds or were out of time.

The remaining disability allegations against CAMH were scheduled for a further preliminary hearing to address timeliness and whether they had been dealt with in another proceeding.

In an interim decision regarding Requests for Orders During Proceedings, the Tribunal addressed motions for document production and dismissal of allegations.

The respondents' request to dismiss older allegations as untimely was denied, as the Tribunal found the allegations formed a series of incidents thematically connected to sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce internal investigation materials, the applicant's professional standards file, and particulars regarding a photograph, finding them arguably relevant.

The respondents' requests for the applicant to produce SIU materials and text messages were denied, though the respondents were permitted to audio-record the hearing at their own expense.

The Member, a teacher librarian, faced disciplinary proceedings for failing to remit funds collected from students for school book fairs and yearbooks over several years.

Following a board audit, the Member repaid $6,220 and resigned.

Before the Discipline Committee, the Member pled guilty to professional misconduct, including failing to maintain professional standards, failing to keep records, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-year suspension of her teaching certificate, and publication of the decision with her name.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex and disability discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal against the respondents.

The individual respondent requested a continued deferral of the application, arguing a related Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation was ongoing.

The organizational respondent requested an extension of time to file its response until after its internal investigation concluded.

The Tribunal denied the individual respondent's request as the SIU investigation had concluded.

The Tribunal also denied the organizational respondent's request for a further extension, finding no concurrent proceeding justified a deferral and that it had already had ample time to investigate.

The respondents were ordered to file their responses within 35 days.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after it was deferred pending a Special Investigations Unit investigation.

The corporate respondent did not oppose reactivation but sought an extension of time to file its Response until after receiving a related Peel Regional Police Services report.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and found an extension of time unnecessary, as the respondents had 35 days from the reactivation date to file their Responses under the Tribunal's rules.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), an intervenor in a case challenging the constitutionality of section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code, requested an extension of time to file an expert report in reply to the respondent's expert report on labour relations.

The respondent and the Attorney General opposed the request, citing prejudice and delay.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding that the contents of the respondent's expert report could not have been fully anticipated and that procedural fairness favoured allowing the OHRC to provide rebuttal evidence regarding section 1 of the Charter.

The Tribunal concluded that the extension would not cause undue prejudice as the opposing parties would still have sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination.

The applicant alleged age discrimination under the Human Rights Code after his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found unconstitutional.

Two teachers' unions, OECTA and ETFO, sought intervenor status to address the constitutional issues.

The respondent and the Attorney General requested limitations on their participation, including a requirement to act jointly.

The Tribunal granted the unions full intervenor status without the requested limitations, finding that their perspectives on the administration of benefits and the impact on older workers would assist the Tribunal in this significant constitutional challenge.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after her union required medical documentation to exempt her from picket duties and subsequently disciplined her for attending work during a strike.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the medical documentation the applicant relied upon did not support her requested exemption, and her decision to attend work was a personal choice unrelated to her disability.