Kate Hughes

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.

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.