Joshua Phillips

The union applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's supplementary decision regarding the termination of employee benefits during the discipline process.

The arbitrator found that the employer's obligation to continue providing benefits to employees grieving their dismissal up to step three of the grievance procedure only lasted until the expiry of the collective agreement and the statutory freeze.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's decision was based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding vacation deductions for a police officer on a gradual return to work program.

The officer worked half-shifts and received WSIB benefits for the remainder.

When taking vacation, the employer deducted full days from his vacation bank.

The arbitrator found this did not violate the collective agreement, as the officer received his full vacation entitlement and WSIB benefits without losing any benefits.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The member brought a motion at the outset of a discipline hearing to limit the scope of the allegations to those specifically particularized in the Notice of Hearing.

The College sought to rely on additional, more serious allegations of sexual misconduct that were not enumerated in the Notice of Hearing but were disclosed in the underlying investigation report, arguing that the phrase 'including but not limited to' permitted their inclusion.

The Discipline Committee granted the member's motion, finding that the member was denied procedural fairness because he was not given adequate notice or an opportunity to respond to the unenumerated allegations during the investigation stage.

The Committee held that the lack of notice at the investigation stage could not be cured by providing particulars at the discipline stage, and prohibited the College from relying on any allegations not specified in the Notice of Hearing.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interlocutory evidentiary ruling regarding settlement privilege in one of 11 test cases concerning employee benefits fraud.

The parties had agreed that the ruling in this test case would apply to the other ten.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the agreement to apply the ruling across test cases did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the fragmentation of the administrative process.

The court emphasized that labour arbitration cases should generally be decided finally before judicial review is sought.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that imposed a non-contracting out provision for a newly created Customer Service Agent position.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because both parties had agreed in written submissions that the issue of contracting out would be left for a future arbitrator, yet the arbitrator decided the issue anyway.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by deciding an issue without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions.

The application for judicial review was allowed in part, and the relevant portions of the award were set aside and remitted to the arbitrator.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving her interactions with deaf students.

The member admitted to exhibiting anger and frustration, being rough and abrasive, and engaging in emotionally abusive conduct toward students, including pulling a safety ring away from a student and aggressively handling another.

The Discipline Committee accepted the member's guilty plea, finding her guilty of psychological or emotional abuse, failing to comply with the Education Act, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension of her certificate, and the successful completion of anger management and classroom management courses.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld a union grievance regarding a teacher laid off out of seniority order.

The board argued it retained a junior teacher because she possessed specific skills (ASL and PECS) necessary for a special education course, fulfilling its statutory duty to provide the 'best possible program.' The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion reasonable that the collective agreement's seniority provisions and the statutory requirements were complementary, and that the junior teacher did not possess recognized qualifications superior to the senior teachers.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of two arbitration decisions regarding the calculation of payouts for unused sick days upon retirement.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement required rounding up years of service for teachers with more than X.500 years, and prohibited rounding down for those with less.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and rejection of the board's past practice and estoppel arguments to be reasonable.

The complainant, a retired Health Care Manager, filed a complaint regarding her entitlement to an enhanced severance payment under the Voluntary Exit Registry.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was not filed within the mandatory time limits set out in Regulation 378/07.

The Board determined that a February 7, 2018 conference call constituted the dispute resolution meeting under section 9(3) of the regulation, meaning the complaint filed on March 6, 2018 was premature.

The Board further held that the time limits in Regulation 378/07 are substantive, not procedural, and therefore cannot be waived under section 4(1) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant police officer appealed her disciplinary convictions on the grounds that the Hearing Officer's private lunches with the prosecutor created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the private lunches did create a reasonable apprehension of bias, the appellant had waived her right to raise the issue because her experienced representative failed to object at the earliest opportunity and instead waited until after the unfavourable decision on the merits was rendered.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and penalties were confirmed.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries and engaging in inappropriate physical contact with a student.

The member signed the student out of class, drove her home, took her out for coffee or lunch, and kissed her on the cheek.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The member was reprimanded, suspended for three months, and required to complete a course on boundary violations.

The appellant police officer was demoted for two years following a guilty plea to Discreditable Conduct.

Before the two-year period ended, he was suspended for allegedly reporting for duty with alcohol in his system.

The respondent police service refused to reinstate him to his former rank, treating the suspension as interrupting the demotion period.

The appellant appealed, arguing the refusal to reinstate was discipline imposed without a hearing.

The Commission directed the Chief of Police to hold a hearing under Part V of the Police Services Act to determine whether the appellant failed to meet the conditions for reinstatement, and dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the appellant's right to appeal the future hearing officer's decision.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) that adjourned an appeal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature.

The court held that the OLRB's decision was an interlocutory adjournment and did not constitute a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of an interim administrative decision.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The member engaged in boundary violations by meeting alone with a student and exchanging inappropriate text messages with another student.

The member also misused sick days to attend conferences for his personal business, solicited students and parents for his business, and disclosed confidential information about a student.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the completion of courses on boundaries and professional ethics.

The Member, a teacher and department head, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for purchasing stolen goods from a student, encouraging other teachers to do the same, and allowing the student to take school property in exchange.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Member was found guilty of failing to maintain the standards of the profession, engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-month retroactive suspension, and the successful completion of a professional ethics course.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct for sending sexually suggestive and personal text and Facebook messages to current and former students over a three-year period.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and completion of a boundary course.

The Committee also ordered publication of the decision with the Member's name, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the serious violation of teacher-student boundaries.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination by her employer regarding her alcohol addiction.

The respondent employer requested that the applicant's union, the Durham Regional Police Association, be added as a respondent.

The applicant and the union opposed this request.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the union as a respondent, finding no allegations of Code violations against the union and noting the applicant's opposition.

However, the Tribunal granted the union's request for intervenor status, recognizing its interest in the accommodation issues raised.

The Durham Regional Police Association and the Senior Officers' Association applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to determine whether a Durham College employee, seconded to the Durham Regional Police Service as Dean of the Police Education and Innovation Centre, was an employee of the Service and thus a member of the Senior Officers' Association.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the clear language of the secondment agreement established the individual remained an employee of the College, despite performing senior leadership duties at the Service.

The Member, a high school teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct for using inappropriate language towards students, failing to supervise students, and taking students off school property in his personal vehicle without permission.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission on penalty.

The Member was reprimanded, ordered to complete a course on professional ethics and boundaries, and the findings were ordered to be published with his name.

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

After the matter was referred to the Discipline Committee, new medical information was received indicating that the matter would be more appropriately resolved by the Fitness to Practise Committee.

With the consent of the member's counsel, the Discipline Committee granted the motion to withdraw the allegations, finding it reasonable, appropriate, and in the public interest.