Christopher Perri

The appellant, a teacher, was found to have committed professional misconduct and sexual abuse by sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a former student.

Under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, this finding resulted in the mandatory revocation of his teaching certificate.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the mandatory revocation provisions unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that the Discipline Panel erred in its evidentiary rulings and by failing to conduct a Doré analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Panel's finding that the infringement of the appellant's freedom of expression was justified under s. 1 of the Charter to protect vulnerable students from sexual abuse.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the calculation of partial-day absences for relief letter carriers.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreement did not require rounding up daily totals of partial absences and had considered the union's history of withdrawing similar grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and use of extrinsic evidence were justified and internally coherent.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Member, a teacher whose certificate was mandatorily revoked after being found to have sexually abused a student by making remarks of a sexual nature, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory revocation provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The Member argued the provisions violated his right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

The Discipline Committee admitted expert evidence from both parties.

Applying the Irwin Toy and Oakes tests, the Committee found that while the mandatory revocation provisions do infringe on the Member's freedom of expression, the infringement is demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Committee held that protecting vulnerable students from the harmful effects of sexual abuse is a pressing and substantial objective, and that a bright-line rule of mandatory revocation is rationally connected and proportionate to that goal.

The constitutional motion was dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for making inappropriate, racist, and derogatory comments to students on multiple occasions while working as an occasional teacher.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal abuse of students, disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, and the successful completion of coursework on equity, diversity, and inclusion.

This appeal concerned an alleged contract for the purchase and sale of goodwill in an investment business, with an alternative claim for unjust enrichment.

The trial judge found a binding contract or, alternatively, unjust enrichment.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings on contract formation (intention and essential terms), unjust enrichment, and mitigation of losses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding of a binding contract and declining to rule on the unjust enrichment finding.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding on mitigation, noting the appellant failed to meet the onus to show mitigation was possible.

The plaintiff in a certified class action regarding unpaid statutory vacation and holiday pay moved to settle the Notice Plan and Notice of Certification.

The parties disagreed on the opt-out deadline, the contents of the opt-out affidavit, and the text of the Notice of Certification.

The court held that the opt-out deadline should be 60 days after the last notice is published and that the opt-out affidavit must identify the individuals who opted out.

However, the court rejected the defendants' proposed revisions to the Notice of Certification, finding them to be unnecessary, unfair, and potentially intimidating to class members.

The Notice of Certification was approved substantially in the form drafted by class counsel.

In a discipline proceeding against a teacher found to have engaged in sexual abuse, the member brought a constitutional motion challenging the mandatory revocation provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

Prior to hearing the motion, the parties sought a ruling on the admissibility of two expert reports.

The Discipline Committee ruled that the expert reports of Dr. Anthony Doob, regarding general deterrence and mandatory minimum sentences, and Dr. Mary Louise Arnold, regarding the harms of sexual abuse in teacher-student interactions, were both admissible.

Written reasons were to follow.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated December 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party did not provide costs submissions, the court made no order as to costs.

The plaintiff, an investment advisor, brought an action against the defendant, a portfolio manager, for $90,000 based on an alleged agreement to buy out the plaintiff's participation rights in a book of business.

The court found that an email exchange between the parties constituted a binding contract, as the essential terms were agreed upon despite the lack of a formal signed document.

The court also found that the plaintiff's subsequent termination did not frustrate the contract.

Alternatively, the court held that the defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining the financial benefits of the book of business without compensating the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded $90,000 plus pre-judgment interest.

The member, a classroom teacher, was found guilty of professional misconduct for participating in the improper alteration of a student's midterm mark on their Ontario Universities' Application Centre (OUAC) file.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension commencing September 1, 2023, and the successful completion of a professional ethics course.

The Committee also ordered the member to pay $5,000 in costs to the College, applying the Hall factors and noting the member's cooperative conduct during the contested hearing.

Following the death of the judge who certified this national class action regarding vacation and public holiday pay, the parties could not agree on the terms of the certification order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to settle the order under rule 59.04(14).

The court settled the class definition start dates by applying the ultimate limitation periods for provinces that have them, and the basic limitation periods (adjusted for Covid-19 suspensions) for provinces that do not.

The court also compendiously restated the liability common issue to include unjust enrichment.

The Discipline Committee previously found that the member engaged in professional misconduct, including the sexual abuse of a student.

At the penalty hearing, the Committee applied the mandatory penalty provisions under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

The Committee ordered that the member receive an oral reprimand and directed the Registrar to immediately revoke the member's certificate of qualification and registration.

The panel remained seized to hear a constitutional challenge to the mandatory penalty provisions at a later date.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included consuming alcohol on a field trip, making inappropriate comments about rape, miscarriage, and vaginal tearing to a Grade 8 class, and sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a former student.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse.

The Committee also found that the Facebook messages were of a sexual nature, constituting sexual abuse of a student under the Act.

An interim order suspending the member's certificate was issued pending the penalty phase.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for her involvement in the improper alteration of a student's mid-term mark on their Ontario Universities' Application Centre (OUAC) file.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member approached the school's Department Head of Student Services with concerns about the student's mark and its impact on university admissions.

The Member agreed to a plan where the Department Head unilaterally increased the student's mark from 80% to 91% on OUAC without the knowledge of the classroom teacher or administration.

The Committee concluded that the Member's actions breached ethical and professional standards, constituting dishonourable and unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action alleging that the defendant brokerage firm failed to provide vacation and public holiday pay to commissioned employees in breach of employment standards legislation.

The defendant argued that commissions continued to be paid while employees were on vacation and that the onus was on employees to prove non-payment.

The court found that the employer bears the burden of proving statutory payments were recorded and made, and that the absence of a class-wide system to record and report these obligations provided some evidence of commonality.

The court certified the class action, finding all requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse for exposing his genitals to a minor, resulting in the revocation of his certificate.

The appellant argued the Panel erred in its credibility assessments, particularly regarding inconsistencies in the minor's evidence and the lack of explicit findings on the appellant's credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Panel's reasons, read contextually, adequately explained its rejection of the appellant's denial and correctly applied the law regarding child witness credibility and inconsistencies.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations that he made inappropriate comments to students, exposed them to sexual remarks, and inappropriately used class time to show videos about serial killers.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, and sexual misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the completion of a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties were co-workers and unionized teachers subject to a collective agreement.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from workplace harassment complaints.

The court applied the exclusive jurisdiction model from Weber, finding that the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and arose from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of the collective agreement.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute must be resolved through the grievance arbitration process.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The Member brought a motion to adjourn the discipline hearing for medical reasons.

The College consented to the adjournment but requested conditions for any future adjournment requests, including a requirement for an independent medical evaluation.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment and imposed conditions on future requests, noting the need to prevent undue delay and manage committee resources.

The Committee ordered that if the Member seeks a future adjournment for medical reasons and the College reasonably requests an independent medical evaluation, the Member may consent to it, with any refusal to be considered by a future panel.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the calculation of relief letter carrier complements under a collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that absences of relief letter carriers temporarily filling long-term vacancies must be included in the bar chart review process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and prior binding awards was reasonable and made labour relations sense.