Kaley Maria Victoria Duff

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 Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against the member for professional misconduct, including allegations of sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse of students.

The member admitted to sending numerous inappropriate and sexually suggestive messages to two students via Facebook, demonstrating a pattern of grooming behaviour.

The member also admitted to unprofessional conduct towards colleagues and students in the classroom.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions for sexual abuse under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Committee ordered a reprimand and the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate.

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 court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Moyra Miller, finding that she was wrongfully dismissed by Alaya Care Inc. The court held that the termination provisions in the employment agreement and offer letter were unenforceable as they violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and did not clearly rebut the presumption of reasonable notice at common law.

The court found that Miller was induced to leave secure employment, and awarded her damages based on a 14-month reasonable notice period, including lost salary, benefits, bonus, and RSUs.

The member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in inappropriate electronic communications with a former student over social media.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including psychological or emotional abuse of a student, and conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a written reprimand, a three-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the completion of a course on boundary violations.

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

The parties agreed to the withdrawal after the respondent signed an Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgment, in which he irrevocably resigned his membership, surrendered his Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and undertook never to teach again in Ontario.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal protected the public interest, avoided a protracted hearing, and spared vulnerable young witnesses from testifying.

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 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 appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against Ontario for the early cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot Program.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the certification judge erred by engaging in a merits-based analysis of the breach of contract claim rather than applying the 'plain and obvious' test under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the negligence, breach of undertaking, and Charter s. 7 claims, finding that the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision immune from negligence liability and that the Charter claim failed to plead the requisite principles of fundamental justice.

Farah Rahman appealed a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had found her employment contracts' termination provisions valid under the ESA and that only one entity, CDAI, was her employer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the "just cause" termination provision in the employment contract violated the ESA by allowing termination without notice for conduct less than "wilful misconduct" rendering all termination provisions void.

The Court also found that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors in determining the employer, concluding that the corporate respondents were common employers due to their high level of integration and control over Ms. Rahman.

The case was remitted to the Superior Court for damages quantification.

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 representative plaintiff brought a motion to approve a class action settlement regarding unpaid overtime and holiday pay for television production workers misclassified as independent contractors.

The settlement provided for a $1 million payment if a proposed collective agreement was ratified, or $2.5 million if it was not.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting it avoided significant litigation risks regarding certification and individual damages proof.

The court also approved a 30% contingency fee for class counsel and a $7,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff due to her exceptional involvement in collective bargaining.

The Court of Appeal heard motions for leave to intervene from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) in a class action appeal concerning the Basic Income Pilot Project.

The CCLA's unopposed motion was granted, allowing it to file a factum and present oral arguments under specific terms.

The ISAC's motion was dismissed without costs because its direct involvement in shaping the factual matrix of the Basic Income Pilot Project, including consultations and advice to participants, made it too closely associated with the potential class members and the underlying factual issues, thus compromising its role as an intervener.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for instructing two students to prepare assessment materials for her classes, providing one student with access to other students' marks, and submitting false marks for that student.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including falsifying records, breaching confidentiality, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the successful completion of coursework on professional ethics and student assessment.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally, physically, and emotionally abusing students, and failing to adequately supervise them during the 2016/2017 school year.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, noting incidents where the Member made inappropriate and insensitive comments, grabbed and dragged a student, and left students unsupervised.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of a course on classroom management.

The Member, an occasional teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct including verbal and psychological abuse of students, inadequate supervision, and unprofessional interactions with colleagues and superiors.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations and agreed to a statement of uncontested facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's teaching certificate, and the successful completion of coursework in professional ethics and classroom management.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an employment contract, claiming entitlement to a 1.5% equity stake in the defendant limited partnership.

The parties disputed the nature of the agreement, the entity in which the equity was held, and the value of the shares, relying on conflicting pre-employment emails and formal documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence and lack of valuation data created genuine issues of credibility and fact that required a trial.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for damages resulting from the early termination of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of undertaking, negligence, breach of public law duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the relationship was not contractual, the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision protected by common law and statutory immunity, and there is no constitutional right to the continuation of a government program.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for consent certification of a class action for settlement purposes, approval of the settlement agreement, approval of class counsel fees and disbursements, approval of a representative plaintiff honorarium, and discontinuance of the action for online-only teachers.

The class action alleged misclassification of teachers as independent contractors, leading to unpaid Employment Standards Act entitlements.

The court approved all requested relief, finding the settlement fair and reasonable, the cy-près distribution appropriate, and the fees and honorarium justified given the risks and efforts involved.

The plaintiff, a 43-year-old grader operator with 15 years of service, moved for summary judgment on a wrongful dismissal claim against the Township.

The court determined a reasonable notice period of 15 months, rejecting the defendant's argument of inadequate mitigation efforts due to insufficient evidence.

The plaintiff's claim for general damages for bad faith dismissal was dismissed, as the Township's failure to continue benefits was not deemed bad faith, and an employee's defamatory statement was outside the scope of employment and lacked proven reputational harm.

Damages were calculated for lost wages, overtime, benefits, and pension, but not for lost vacation pay.