Kate A. Hughes

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct.

The member admitted to engaging in boundary violations, including personal communications with a student via instant messaging, driving students in his personal vehicle, taking photographs of students against their wishes, and accessing dating and other inappropriate websites on a school board computer.

The Discipline Committee accepted the member's guilty plea and found him guilty of professional misconduct.

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

The respondent College of Nurses of Ontario brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to have its motion to dismiss heard at the outset of the hearing, or alternatively to bifurcate the liability phase, and to strike certain witness statements.

The Tribunal denied the requests for a summary hearing and bifurcation, finding them to be attempts to re-litigate previously decided issues.

The Tribunal granted the request to exclude certain witness evidence during the liability phase, as the proposed evidence related to remedial issues such as the impact of the alleged discrimination on the applicant's career and finances.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who, while acting as treasurer for her local union, misappropriated approximately $55,000 and forged signatures on cheques.

The member had previously pled guilty to criminal charges of theft over $5,000 and uttering a forged document, receiving a conditional sentence and making restitution.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a 17-month suspension of her teaching certificate, and publication of the decision with her name in the College's official magazine, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and maintenance of public trust.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the College of Nurses of Ontario's registration process discriminates against applicants with disabilities.

The Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) requested intervenor status, arguing it has an interest in the outcome as it represents nurses and the applicant was a member.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing ONA's participation would cause delay and duplication, as ONA and the applicant share the same legal counsel.

The Tribunal granted ONA intervenor status but limited its participation to making written and oral submissions following the completion of evidence, finding that broader participatory rights would unnecessarily lengthen and complicate the hearing.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and family status regarding her return to work following a medical leave.

The respondent school board sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding the change of her volunteer placement to a different school raised triable issues regarding the procedural duty to accommodate and family status discrimination.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding her placement in a long-term occasional position rather than a permanent position, finding no evidence that her disability required a permanent position.

The application against the respondent union was also dismissed.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of an employee's long-term disability benefits under a collective agreement.

The hospital argued that the employee's benefits should be reduced by the amount of a disability pension she could have received had she terminated her employment.

The arbitrator found that the pension was not 'available' because electing it would require the employee to terminate her employment and forfeit significant health care benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award which found it had violated the Collective Agreement by changing a registered nurse's status from full-time to part-time.

To accommodate her disability, the nurse worked half her hours in her previous bargaining unit position and half in a non-bargaining unit administrative position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction and that his interpretation of the Collective Agreement, in light of the employer's duty to accommodate, was reasonable.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct involving inappropriate physical contact with two autistic students.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Committee ordered a reprimand and publication of the decision in summary form without the Member's name, noting her 31 years of unblemished teaching experience, her completion of classroom and anger management courses, and her impending retirement.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student, 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 on consent, authorizing the withdrawal in exchange for the Member's immediate resignation, an undertaking not to seek reinstatement or teach in Ontario for at least five years, and a notation on the Public Register reflecting the resignation while disciplinary proceedings were pending.

The Union sought interim relief to compel the Employer to provide Crown counsel with information that an inspector's discharge was being challenged at arbitration, in the context of a McNeil disclosure letter.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the relief sought had essentially been obtained because the inspector's views, including the fact that his discharge was proceeding to arbitration, had already been put before the Crown.

The unions sought specific orders requiring the employer to immediately commence harmonization of security checks in legacy ministries in accordance with the March 2005 Policy and Guidelines.

The employer had recently provided a new draft Employment Screening Checks Policy and argued that the requested orders would be premature and could conflict with Cabinet's statutory discretion.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to issue the requested orders, finding that the parties were best served by deferring consideration to allow them to discuss the new draft policy and attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution.

The Board remained seized of the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming her employer and union failed to accommodate her sensitivity to scented products.

The respondent union and its representative requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against them for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in her absence and dismissed the application against the union and its representative, finding no factual foundation or allegations of differential treatment that could establish a Code violation regarding the union's representation.

The unions filed a grievance alleging that the Employer failed to implement Phase 3 of the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy in a timely manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board declared that the Employer's failure to commence harmonization by late 2010 was inconsistent with a reasonable interpretation of its obligations under the Policy.

However, because the Employer presented a plan to commence the process during the hearing, the Board declined to order specific timelines for completion, immediate harmonization of re-checks, or formal document production, allowing the Employer's process to unfold while remaining seized of the matter.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer violated privacy legislation and the Collective Agreement by proactively obtaining Canada Police Information Centre (CPIC) checks on Occupational Health and Safety Inspectors without their consent.

The Employer argued that the checks were necessary to fulfill its disclosure obligations under the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. McNeil.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that McNeil did not compel the Crown to proactively obtain third-party CPIC information without consent, noting that privacy interests must be balanced and that the O'Connor process is available for third-party records.

The Board declared that the Employer's broad approach did not accord with an appropriate exercise of management rights and allowed the grievance.

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.

In a policy grievance concerning the application of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. McNeil to enforcement officers, the Union sought production of a list of all prosecutions from all Enforcement Ministries since January 2009, detailing whether CPIC checks or discipline disclosures were requested for lead officers.

The Employer opposed the request as a fishing expedition that would require creating documents and argued the information was irrelevant to the core issue of whether McNeil applies at all.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the production request, finding that the voluminous detailed information sought would not assist in determining the legal issue of whether McNeil creates an obligation for the Enforcement Ministries.

The Union requested disclosure of documents and particulars relating to the MOL Interim Protocol and McNeil disclosure.

The Employer consented to producing certain documents by October 26, 2010, subject to solicitor-client privilege concerns, and undertook to seek instructions on the remaining requests.

The Board ordered the Employer to advise the Union of its position by October 26, 2010, with a conference call to be convened if the parties cannot resolve the remaining issues.

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 Union and the Association grieved the Employer's decision to subject certain positions within the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and the Ministry of Revenue (MOR) to security checks under the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy.

The Employer argued the checks were necessary due to the positions' access to highly sensitive, confidential, and personal information, including federal tax and benefit databases.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances, finding that while the information accessed by these positions is confidential, it does not constitute 'highly sensitive information and/or assets' as contemplated by the Policy and its Threat Risk Assessment guidelines, which were intended for positions with access to identity documents, cheque writing machines, or information whose misuse could cause massive financial or political harm.