Gary Hopkinson

The grievor, a bus driver, resigned from her employment after being mistakenly informed by the employer that her probationary period was being extended.

She sent a resignation email while in a state of severe emotional distress and later slept for several hours, missing the second half of her split shift.

The next day, she sought to rescind her resignation, but the employer refused.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance, finding that the grievor lacked a continuing objective intent to resign because her actions were heavily influenced by emotional upset caused by the employer's error.

The resignation was deemed invalid.

The applicant, a police officer with a disability, alleged that her police association and its executive members discriminated against her by withdrawing from her harassment grievance arbitration.

She also alleged a failure to accommodate her disability during settlement discussions and discriminatory mistreatment at membership meetings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the decision to withdraw was tainted by discriminatory considerations, but rather was based on legitimate financial concerns and a breakdown in the relationship.

The Tribunal also found no failure to accommodate and concluded the allegations of mistreatment were unsubstantiated.

The applicant, a police officer, sought to amend her human rights application against the police services board and the police association to include detailed allegations of sexual harassment, a poisoned work environment, failure to accommodate, and reprisal, and to add a personal respondent.

The Tribunal allowed some amendments, including those relating to disability, reprisal, and failure to investigate, but denied amendments that substantially changed the nature of the original application, such as adding the personal respondent for historical sexual harassment allegations.

The Tribunal also directed a summary hearing to determine if the allegations against the police association and certain other allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of the base salaries of the Chief of Police and two deputies under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the compelling public interest in transparency outweighed the limited privacy interests of the affected parties, even though their total income was already disclosed under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the adjudicator reasonably balanced the competing interests and his decision was owed deference.

Correctional officers sued a union official and the union for defamation arising from statements made in a regional president’s report delivered at a national union assembly describing the plaintiffs as conducting a campaign of “lies and untruths” during a union raiding effort.

The court found the statements were defamatory and made on an occasion of qualified privilege because they were delivered by a union officer to union members regarding union affairs.

However, the privilege was defeated because the language accusing the plaintiffs of lying was irrelevant to the reporting duty and motivated by an ulterior purpose to discredit and intimidate those attempting to challenge the union’s bargaining status.

The court also found actual malice based on a coordinated effort to label opponents as liars during the raid.

Each plaintiff was awarded $25,000 in general damages and $7,000 in aggravated damages.

On the counterclaim, defamatory internet publications about the union were proven but resulted only in nominal damages to the union.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that certain technology integrators, hired as independent contractors through a third party, were actually employees of the board and 'teachers' within the respondent union's bargaining unit.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because he conflated the workers' desire to become employees with a legal intention to form an employment relationship, and his analysis of whether they were teachers was logically flawed.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the award quashed, and the matter remitted for rehearing.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a high school teacher who accessed and downloaded pornographic materials, including images of teenaged girls, on school computers.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations and admitted the facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession, failing to comply with the Education Act, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered a six-month suspension of the member's certificate, a reprimand, and publication of the decision with the member's name.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving boundary violations with four female students.

The member admitted to inappropriate conduct, including giving gifts, expressing love, spending time alone with students, and interfering with a school board investigation.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a plea of no contest, the Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the revocation of the member's teaching certificate and publication of the decision with his name.

The member, a high school teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with one student and inappropriate physical contact with another.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, emphasizing the need to protect students and maintain public trust in the profession.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member set out in a Notice of Hearing.

The member consented to the motion.

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 Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member set out in the Notice of Hearing.

On consent of the parties, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that the member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with a student.

The member admitted to visiting a former student alone at her apartment on two occasions to discuss her relationship issues.

The Discipline Committee accepted the member's guilty plea and found him guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, the successful completion of a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries, and publication of the decision.

The member, a high school teacher, pled no contest to allegations of professional misconduct for sending graphic material, including profanity, sexual jokes, and pornographic images, to three male students via the Internet.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, suspended his certificate of qualification for seven months, and ordered him to appear for a reprimand and complete a course on appropriate teacher/student boundaries before returning to teaching.

The Member, an occasional teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for making inappropriate comments with sexual innuendo to students and touching female students without their consent.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations and admitted the facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered that the Member be permitted to resign, his certificate of qualification be cancelled, and he provide an undertaking never to teach again.

The Member, a high school teacher, pled no contest to allegations of professional misconduct after admitting to taking two female students to a hotel room and engaging in consensual sexual activity with one of them.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate and publication of the decision.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the member.

With the consent of the parties and pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal was reasonable and protected the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member set out in the Notice of Hearing.

The member consented to the withdrawal.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding that the withdrawal was reasonable and protected the public interest.

The union grieved the employer's correction of an error in an employee's seniority date, which resulted in the grievor losing shift selection preference.

The union argued that a prior memorandum of agreement barred adjustments to seniority dates after a specific deadline, and alternatively relied on the doctrine of estoppel.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the language of the current collective agreement expressly permitted the correction of errors by stating an employee's seniority date is the greater of the specified formula or the previous agreement.

The estoppel argument also failed because the union had agreed to the current wording.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in sexual relations with an adult student and repeatedly accessing pornography on school computers using his and other teachers' user names.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a student.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's certificate of qualification and registration.

The applicant union sought interim relief to prevent the exclusion of certain employees from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act pending a decision on the merits.

The Board held that while section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 limits interim orders to procedural matters, section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the Board a broader, general power to make interim orders related to its jurisdiction, which prevails due to the override provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

However, the Board declined to grant interim relief in this case, primarily because the applicant was unwilling to proceed expeditiously with a hearing on the merits.