Kate Hughes

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 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, 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, 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 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.