Kate A. Hughes

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 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 Union sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from obtaining and disclosing CPIC checks on Health and Safety Inspectors without their consent, arguing it violated privacy rights.

The Employer contended the checks were necessary to fulfill its disclosure obligations under the McNeil decision for regulatory prosecutions.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, on an interim basis, the interests of the administration of justice outweighed the privacy concerns, but ordered procedural safeguards including notice to the Inspectors.

The Board also dismissed the Union's request for production of the Employer's legal opinion, finding that solicitor-client privilege had not been waived.

The bargaining agents sought interim relief against the Employer's new practice of requiring employees to provide fingerprints to obtain criminal record information following a 'hit' on a CPIC check.

The change was prompted by a new RCMP directive.

The bargaining agents argued this violated the collective agreement and the agreed-upon Personnel Screening Checks Policy, which stated fingerprints would only be required as a last resort.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted partial interim relief, ordering that employees with a 'hit' not be asked to provide fingerprints, but allowing the Employer to temporarily modify their duties or reassign them without loss of pay pending the resolution of the grievance.

AMAPCEO sought interim relief to prevent the Ministry of Revenue from conducting personnel screening checks on approximately 214 members pending the resolution of a grievance.

The screening checks were initiated to comply with Canada Revenue Agency requirements for accessing taxpayer information.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim order, finding that AMAPCEO raised an arguable case and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the employees' privacy interests, which could not be effectively remedied retroactively, over the Employer's implementation timeline.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order requiring the parties to attempt to identify anonymized examples of relevant documents from training materials.

If unable to do so, the Employer was ordered to identify and disclose anonymized examples from client files, including database screen shots, to be maintained securely to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, alleged that the school board's system for assigning work discriminated against him on the basis of age by favouring retired teachers.

The respondent and intervenor requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had already dealt with the substance of the application in a prior duty of fair representation complaint.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the issues, concluding that the assignment system did not discriminate on a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including failing to report a student's disclosure of physical abuse at home, physically disciplining students on four occasions, and leaving students unsupervised.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, completion of courses on positive discipline and classroom management, an Additional Basic Qualifications course, a review of reporting requirements with a union representative, and publication of the decision without the member's name.

The respondents brought a Request for Order seeking early dismissal of the applicant's human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents argued the substance of the application was the same as a previous duty of fair representation complaint settled at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and a previous complaint dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, it lacked jurisdiction because the subject-matter of the application was substantially the same as the previous complaint filed with the Commission.

The application was dismissed.

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 complainant requested that the hearing be reconvened to address the Ministry's alleged failure to comply with previous Tribunal orders from 2002 and 2007.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal ordered the hearing to resume and suspended the operations of the TEDC Compliance Committee pending resolution.

The Tribunal also ordered the Ministry to produce various documents related to workplace discrimination and harassment prevention, respond to a METRAC report, and provide METRAC personnel with access to Ministry staff for evaluation purposes.

The bargaining agents (AMAPCEO and OPSEU) sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from implementing new security checks for employees involved in the Enhanced Driver's Licence program, pending a challenge to the validity of the checks.

The new checks, required by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, included criminal, credit, and CSIS checks.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim relief, finding that the balance of convenience favored the bargaining agents because the incursions on privacy could not be reversed if the unions ultimately prevailed, whereas the public could still use passports to cross the border if the program was delayed.

The Member pleaded no contest to an allegation of incompetence following two unsatisfactory performance appraisals related to classroom management, curriculum knowledge, and lesson planning.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member incompetent.

The Committee ordered terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's Certificate, requiring the completion of specific courses and satisfactory performance appraisals before returning to teaching.

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

The member was not in attendance, but the parties consented to the withdrawal.

Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations without a hearing.

The member, a teacher of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including using inappropriately loud and aggressive language with students and a parent, applying unnecessary physical discipline to a student, and disregarding a principal's direction.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and imposing terms on the member's certificate requiring a performance appraisal within 12 months.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of an order by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Board of Inquiry requiring her to submit to an extensive medical examination to assess her capacity to practice.

The Board ordered the examination after receiving allegations of narcotic administration discrepancies but provided no reasons for its decision.

The Divisional Court quashed the order, holding that the highly intrusive nature of the examination and the severe consequences of non-compliance triggered a high duty of procedural fairness under the Baker factors, which included a duty to provide reasons demonstrating reasonable and probable grounds for the order.

The appellant appealed a $100 costs order made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario for late notification of a settlement.

The Divisional Court found the costs award unreasonable because the Committee made a factual error regarding disclosure, failed to consider the College's shared responsibility for the delay, and provided no reasons for departing from the parties' joint submission that no costs should be awarded.

The appeal was allowed and the costs order was set aside.

The member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for restraining an elderly patient without consent or a physician's order using a bed sheet, and for briefly covering the patient's mouth to quiet her.

The member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission as to Penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-week suspension, and conditions on the member's certificate of registration, including meeting with a Practice Consultant and employer notification requirements.

The Member, a vice-principal, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct relating to the administration of the Grade 10 EQAO literacy test.

She failed to correct staff who gave inappropriate instructions to scribes and participated in reviewing and completing test booklets after students had left the testing area.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and found her guilty of failing to maintain professional standards, failing to adequately supervise staff, and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, publication, and a six-month suspension of her teaching certificate, which could be reduced to four months upon successful completion of an ethics course.

The Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession and failing to adequately supervise students in his special education class.

Over a two-year period, the Member demonstrated difficulties with classroom management, student discipline, and curriculum delivery, receiving unsatisfactory performance appraisals.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a three-month suspension to be postponed and ultimately waived if the Member successfully completes approved courses in curriculum planning and classroom management within six months, along with a two-year monitoring period.