Kelly Doctor

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct relating to her failure to adequately supervise students.

During the 2010-2011 school year, several incidents occurred in the member's classroom resulting in injuries to students, including biting, scratching, and strangling.

The member admitted to struggling with classroom management and agreed to a finding of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand.

The Committee also ordered that the member's name be published in the College's official publication, finding that publication was necessary for specific and general deterrence and to serve the public interest.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to directly assign or provide bumping opportunities to a surplussed employee.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the employee waived all such rights when he elected the pension bridging option to retire under Surplus Factor 80.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the collective agreement provisions for Surplus Factor 80 and pension bridging were independent.

The employee had no rights to direct assignment or bumping during the notice period because he utilized pension bridging.

However, based on the specific communications and the employer's failure to confirm pension eligibility as required, the employee did not knowingly waive his rights to direct assignment and bumping during the pre-notice period.

The preliminary objection was upheld in part.

The applicant, a caretaker, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate her disability.

A union grievance regarding the same issues had already been referred to arbitration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its normal practice to defer applications where there is significant overlap of facts and issues with a pending grievance arbitration.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct following a criminal conviction for driving with a blood-alcohol level over 80mg.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Resolution.

The member was reprimanded.

The only contested issue was whether the member's name should be published in the decision summary.

The Committee ordered publication of the member's name, finding it necessary for transparency and as a general and specific deterrent.

This appeal and cross-appeal addressed whether Ontario’s SIU framework permits police officers involved in fatal incidents to consult counsel before completing duty notes.

The majority held the regulatory scheme does not permit consultation with counsel at the note-making stage, emphasizing transparency, public confidence, legislative history, and the duty to prepare independent, complete notes.

It rejected even limited pre-note legal consultation as inconsistent with the scheme’s objectives, while confirming officers may consult counsel after filing notes.

The cross-appeal was allowed, overturning the Court of Appeal’s allowance of basic legal advice prior to notes.

Dissenting reasons on cross-appeal would have preserved a narrow right to basic legal advice that excluded drafting assistance.

The parties in a grievance arbitration regarding surplus notice and bumping rights agreed on a disclosure protocol, except for one paragraph.

The Association sought to include a paragraph requiring the employer to provide a summary of reasons why the grievor was not eligible for positions identified by the Association.

The employer objected, arguing it improperly shifted the burden of proof and was premature.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the inclusion of the disputed paragraph, finding it would facilitate an efficient hearing and did not alter the burden of proof, as the employer's obligation would only be triggered after the Association provided its initial disclosure.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the employer's refusal to pay a grievor for sick days and holidays.

The employer had rejected the grievor's medical notes after a supervisor overheard a rumour that the grievor planned to call in sick and manipulate her blood pressure to obtain a note.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably admitted the rumour evidence not for its truth, but to explain why the employer requested further medical information.

The court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that the union failed to meet its onus of proving illness due to the insufficiency of the medical notes provided.

The appellants appealed a decision striking their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty of care against a teacher and school boards.

The motions judge had struck the claims on the basis that the psychological damages pleaded were not reasonably foreseeable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that a teacher's alleged breach of duties towards a 13-year-old student could not cause reasonably foreseeable psychological damage.

The parents' direct claim against the school board was also permitted to proceed.