Naomi Greckol-Herlich

The applicants, an advocacy coalition and an individual, sought judicial review of the Minister of Long-Term Care's decision to grant a conditional undertaking to issue a licence for a new 320-bed long-term care home to Southbridge Care Homes.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable given the operator's poor record during the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged procedural unfairness during public consultations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing as the coalition was an unincorporated association without legal capacity and the individual lacked a genuine interest.

In the alternative, the court held the Minister's decision was reasonable and the consultation process was procedurally fair.

In a grievance arbitration, the arbitrator issued a procedural order regarding the production of documents.

The employer was ordered to produce a complete copy of the grievor's Health & Wellness file to the union by a specified date.

Subsequently, the union was ordered to produce all arguably relevant portions of that file to employer counsel.

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

The member admitted to engaging in a pattern of offensive behaviour towards six female colleagues over multiple academic years, including making inappropriate sexual comments, physically intimidating them, and touching two colleagues without consent.

The member had previously pled guilty to simple assault in relation to one of the incidents.

The Discipline Committee accepted the parties' Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, and the successful completion of coursework on professional boundaries and ethics.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct, including verbal and psychological abuse of students, sexual misconduct, and practising under the influence of a substance.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, which involved making inappropriate and sexualized comments and gestures to students, attending school smelling of a substance contrary to prescribed treatment, and failing to follow absence reporting protocols.

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

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

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct, alleging verbal, physical, and psychological abuse of students.

The member admitted to pulling a student by the sweatshirt, causing a neck sprain, and making threatening and violent comments to students, including remarks about beating, maiming, and shooting them.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, and the completion of a course on classroom management and professional ethics.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally and emotionally abusing students and acting unprofessionally towards colleagues over two academic years.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension of his teaching certificate, and the completion of coursework on anger management, professional ethics, and cultural sensitivity.

The Member, a teacher, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a student that began while the student was under 18 and continued after he turned 18.

The conduct included exchanging personal messages, hugging, flirting, and later engaging in physical intimacy of a sexual nature, providing alcohol, and sending manipulative messages.

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

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

The member brought a motion to adjourn the discipline hearing on the basis of medical evidence indicating an inability to participate and instruct counsel.

The College did not take a position but raised concerns about delay.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment, finding the request timely and supported by sufficient medical reasons, and ordered that the new hearing date be peremptory on the member.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally and physically abusing a special needs student.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations, admitting to grabbing, dragging, and shouting at the student on multiple occasions.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension of the Member's teaching certificate, and the completion of a classroom management and anger management course before returning to teaching.

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

The parties agreed to the withdrawal in exchange for the Member's undertaking to resign her membership immediately and never seek reinstatement or teach again in Ontario.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal was in the public interest as the Member had not taught since 2014, there were no new safety concerns, and the undertaking ensured no future students would be exposed to her.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a student.

The Member had previously pleaded guilty to criminal charges of sexual exploitation.

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

The Committee ordered the mandatory penalty of revocation of the Member's teaching certificate and a reprimand.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for sexually abusing a student through sexually explicit electronic communications and online sexual acts.

The Member brought a motion for a publication ban on his name, presenting unopposed medical evidence that publication would likely cause him serious harm.

The Discipline Committee granted the exceptional publication ban under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

On the merits, the Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

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

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions of the Act, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and a reprimand.

The Member, a teacher, pled no contest to allegations of professional misconduct involving an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a Grade 9 student.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and failing to maintain professional boundaries.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate and directed that she receive a reprimand.

The United Steelworkers Local Union 2251, supported by USW Local 2724 and Essar Algoma retirees, brought a motion to qualify a "Subject Bidder" as a Phase II Bidder in a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The Subject Bidder had been disqualified by Essar Algoma, its Chief Restructuring Advisor, Financial Advisor, and the Monitor for failing to provide satisfactory evidence of financial capability to consummate a transaction.

The union argued it was not properly consulted in the disqualification decision and that it should have been allowed to meet with the Subject Bidder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the union's consultation rights under the Sale and Solicitation Process (SISP) did not extend to decisions on a bidder's financial capability, and that the court should not second-guess the business judgment of the CCAA applicants and their professionals.

In the context of CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought approval of a grievance claims procedure to resolve approximately 3,000 outstanding grievances.

USW Local 2251 opposed the motion, arguing that the CCAA stay did not apply to grievances, that imposing a new procedure impermissibly amended the collective agreement, and that staying the grievance process violated section 2(d) of the Charter.

The court granted the motion, holding that the CCAA permits staying grievance procedures and imposing a claims process, which does not constitute an amendment to the collective agreement.

The court also found no Charter violation and held that under the doctrine of paramountcy, the CCAA stay provisions prevail over the grievance arbitration requirements in the provincial Labour Relations Act.

Following the release of the court's reasons on appeal, the parties agreed to set aside the trial judge's costs award.

On consent, the Court of Appeal ordered the appellants to pay the respondents costs in the amount of $355,000, plus disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondents for losses arising from unauthorized investment trading, arguing the action was barred by the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the modified objective test for discoverability.

The respondents cross-appealed to recover capital gains taxes incurred due to the unauthorized trading.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that the claim for taxes was not a new cause of action but a claim for additional damages arising from the existing cause of action, and thus not statute-barred.

Gabriella Sasso and Ronald Adams appealed Notices of Proposed Orders of Suspension and fines issued by the Director for violating 'hidden trainer' rules by associating with a suspended trainer.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found clear, cogent, and compelling evidence that the suspended trainer was improperly involved in their business.

However, the panel concluded the proposed penalties were too severe, as the appellants had been taken advantage of by the suspended trainer.

The panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing Sasso's suspension to six months and fine to $2,000, and Adams's suspension to eight months and fine to $5,000.

The panel also ordered the release of frozen purse monies to the owners and drivers.

The moving party regulator brought a motion to strike a lengthy statement of claim alleging various wrongs arising from disciplinary proceedings, settlement agreements, trustee services, and bankruptcy matters.

The court held that many allegations were barred by a prior settlement and release, constituted impermissible collateral attacks on regulatory decisions, were statute-barred, or disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court considered whether the pleadings could support the tort of misfeasance in public office but found that the material facts alleged did not establish deliberate unlawful conduct or knowledge of likely harm.

Even accepting the pleaded facts as true, the claim could not succeed in law and amendment would not cure the defects.

The action against the regulator was therefore dismissed and costs were awarded.