Kate A. Hughes

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to her treatment of an agitated psychiatric client.

The Member admitted to yelling at the client, unintentionally slapping the client on the face and arm, and roughly removing the client's clothing while assisting in placing the client in restraints.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an 8-week suspension, a reprimand, and remedial conditions on the Member's certificate of registration.

The third party consultants appointed to oversee the implementation of the Tribunal's orders regarding workplace discrimination and harassment prevention (WDHP) at the Toronto East Detention Centre submitted their First Quarterly Report of 2006.

The consultants recommended three modifications to the Tribunal's previous rulings: allowing managers to take action on WDHP matters they witness directly, permitting external investigators to handle multiple complaints simultaneously, and enabling senior managers to conduct initial fact-finding for WDHP complaints.

The Tribunal adopted the recommendations with certain modifications, emphasizing the need for management accountability and proper training while ensuring the protection of complainants' rights.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for falsifying client assessment records and submitting a fraudulent mileage expense claim.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts in which the Member admitted to not attending client visits but completing documentation to make it appear she had, due to workload difficulties.

The Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission as to Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-week suspension, and conditions on her certificate of registration.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order vacating a previous interim relief order that had directed the employer to refrain from proceeding with its Personnel Security Checks Initiative.

The Board ordered that the Personnel Screening Checks Policy and Operational Guidelines could be implemented by the employer as of January 1, 2006.

The Board remained seized of issues regarding specific phases of the guidelines and redeployment processes, and directed the parties to meet to review the operation of the policy by September 30, 2006.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to intervene in an ongoing Ontario Human Rights Tribunal hearing regarding the implementation of remedial orders for workplace discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent unusual circumstances.

The court found no such circumstances, noting the applicants' interests were aligned with the Ministry, which was already a party, and emphasizing the chaotic consequences of granting party standing to every non-party whose conduct is raised in evidence.

The applicants, who were non-parties implicated in allegations of harassment and discrimination, sought a stay or adjournment of the Tribunal's proceedings pending a judicial review of a previous decision that denied them standing.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and concluded that the circumstances were not exceptional and did not warrant a stay.

The Tribunal found that the balance of convenience favoured the complainant, who would suffer prolonged harm from further delays, and that any potential harm to the applicants' reputations was not irreparable.

The motion for a stay or adjournment was denied.

The Tribunal issued interim rulings regarding a third-party report on the selection of external investigators for workplace discrimination and harassment complaints at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Tribunal approved the consultants' criteria for selecting investigators and rejected the Ministry's and Commission's requests for a 'balanced' roster of complainant-side and respondent-side lawyers.

The Tribunal also ruled that draft investigation reports should only be provided to the parties to the complaint, not exclusively to the Ministry, and that investigators should not include recommendations in their final reports to protect the integrity of the fact-finding process.

During a human rights hearing regarding workplace discrimination and harassment, a motion for standing was brought by two non-party employees whose conduct was the subject of evidence adduced by the complainant.

The applicants sought standing to cross-examine witnesses and defend their interests, arguing that the evidence might negatively impact their employment or reputations.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the applicants had not infringed the complainant's rights and thus were not parties under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal further held that granting standing to anyone whose conduct is questioned in evidence would cause undue delay and chaos, and that the applicants' interests could be adequately addressed if they were called as witnesses.

The complainant sought interim orders regarding the handling of workplace discrimination and harassment complaints at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Tribunal clarified that all complaints made at the Centre must be subject to external investigation.

The Tribunal ruled that the third party consultants, rather than the Compliance Committee, are responsible for formulating recommendations regarding the external investigation process, including the roster of eligible investigators and selection criteria.

The complainant's request to order the reprocessing of previously commenced investigations was denied.

The parties sought clarification of the Tribunal's 2002 implementation orders regarding systemic remedies for a racially poisoned workplace at the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The Ministry argued that the independent consultants appointed to develop and oversee anti-racism training were exceeding their mandate by proposing pilot projects, monitoring compliance, and addressing racism towards inmates.

The Tribunal rejected the Ministry's narrow interpretation, confirming that the consultants have broad authority to design and implement a comprehensive change plan to eradicate workplace racism.

The Tribunal also denied the Ministry's motion to call an expert witness to challenge the consultants' proposal, granted limited intervenor standing to the union, and extended the timeline for completing the change process to the end of 2009.

The appellant Ministry appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Human Rights Tribunal's supervisory jurisdiction over the implementation of its previous orders.

The Tribunal had found that the Ministry acted in bad faith in attempting to comply with an order mandating a human rights training program to address a poisoned work environment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal retained jurisdiction under s. 41 to recast its orders and impose system-wide remedies.

The Court also rejected the Ministry's argument that it was denied procedural fairness, concluding it had sufficient notice of the allegations of bad faith.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after initiating magazine subscriptions in the name of a complainant whose previous complaint against the member had been dismissed.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty.

During the penalty phase, the panel denied a request for standing from the complainant's counsel.

The panel also rejected a joint submission on penalty that proposed withholding the member's name from the public register, finding that publication was necessary for general deterrence and public accountability.

The member was reprimanded, ordered to pay $1,500 in costs, and her name was published.

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed a decision of the Human Rights Board of Inquiry finding that the Ministry failed to comply with a 1998 remedial order regarding a racially poisoned work environment.

The Board had ordered a human rights training program, which was not implemented within the required timeframe or in the approved manner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board had the supervisory jurisdiction to remain seized of the matter, hear evidence of continuing discrimination, and recast its original orders to ensure an effective remedy.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a motion to strike an affidavit from the appeal book in an appeal from a human rights tribunal decision.

The affidavit contained notes and subjective observations regarding the tribunal's conduct during the hearing, which the Commission argued went beyond permissible gap-filling evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit was not fresh evidence but was relevant to the issues of bias and partiality raised on appeal.

The moving parties (respondents on the appeal) brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of several orders made by a Board of Inquiry regarding a racially poisoned workplace at a detention centre.

The Board had ordered the Ministry to publicize its decision, implement organizational reforms, and conduct anti-racism training.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and lifted the stay of the order requiring publication of the decision, finding irreparable harm to the complainant if he was kept out of the workplace.

However, the court declined to lift the stays on the orders requiring organizational reforms and training, finding that the balance of convenience favoured leaving them in place until the appeal was decided, given the substantial public funds involved and the Ministry's pending appeal.

In an ongoing human rights hearing regarding a racially poisoned work environment, the respondents moved to disqualify the Commission's proposed expert witness.

The respondents argued that the expert was bound by a confidentiality agreement from his consulting work for the Ministry and that his prior lawsuit against the Ministry for unpaid fees created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the confidentiality agreement did not apply to evidence of human rights infractions or expert opinions on systemic change, and that the fee dispute did not compromise the expert's independence.

However, the adjudicator ordered that the expert testify after the respondents' evidence to avoid prejudice.

In an ongoing human rights proceeding regarding a racially poisoned work environment, the respondents brought a motion to disqualify the Commission's proposed expert witness, Dr. Ralph Agard.

The respondents argued that the expert was bound by a confidentiality agreement from his prior consulting work for the Ministry and that his previous lawsuit against the Ministry for unpaid fees created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the confidentiality agreement did not protect evidence of human rights infractions or evaluations of the workplace atmosphere.

Furthermore, the prior fee dispute did not compromise the expert's independence or transform him into an advocate.

The expert was permitted to testify, though his evidence was ordered to be heard after the respondents' factual evidence.

The Ministry of Correctional Services applied for judicial review to prevent a Board of Inquiry from considering whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the implementation of its previous human rights order.

The Board had found the workplace to be poisoned and retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the Board should first be permitted to determine the extent of its retained jurisdiction and the relevance of the new allegations to the implementation of its remedy.

The union applied for immediate relief in advance of a final offer vote, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices through intimidation and coercion regarding the consequences of a 'no' vote.

The Board declined to grant the requested declarations and cease-and-desist orders on an expedited basis, finding insufficient evidence had been presented in the single day of hearing to assess the totality of the bargaining context.

The Board directed the parties to bring to the employees' attention a statement affirming their right to vote freely and secretly, and scheduled the matter for continuation.

The Northwest GTA Hospital Corporation applied under the Public Sector Labour Transition Act to resolve outstanding issues prior to ordering representation votes following a hospital amalgamation.

The Board determined the composition of office and clerical units, and declined to maintain separate bargaining units for stationary engineers and Etobicoke paraprofessionals, opting instead for broader service and paramedical/technical units to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board also ordered the employer to provide the unions with employee names and addresses to facilitate access prior to the representation votes.