Robert D. Whillans

The employer and seven employees sought judicial review of two decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board: a decision certifying the union as the bargaining agent for a unit of carpenters, and a decision dismissing requests for reconsideration.

The applicants argued the decisions were procedurally unfair because they were made without a hearing, and unreasonable because the Board failed to properly consider allegations that the union organizer used misrepresentation to obtain signed membership cards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's specialized procedures permitted it to decide the matter without a hearing, and that its decisions were rational, logical, and tenable based on the evidence and submissions.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers held a penalty hearing for a retired member previously found guilty of professional misconduct.

The misconduct involved violating school policy by allowing unauthorized vehicles on school property, using the auto shop for personal repairs, removing a lathe without permission, allowing an unauthorized volunteer, and failing to comply with health and safety provisions.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, the completion of a safety course before returning to teaching, and publication of the decision with the member's name.

The Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for making inappropriate physical contact with students and a colleague, and making inappropriate comments to a female student and a colleague.

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

The Member was ordered to receive a reprimand, complete a course on professional boundaries, and have the decision published with his name, as the Committee found publication necessary for specific and general deterrence.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving poor classroom management, harassment of a female colleague, and inappropriate physical contact with a student.

The member pleaded guilty to the allegations and admitted the facts.

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

The Committee also ordered that the decision be published with the member's name, finding that publication was necessary for specific and general deterrence and to maintain public confidence in the discipline process.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member, Cordel Stephen Browne.

College Counsel determined there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations and no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding of professional misconduct.

The member's counsel consented.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding the withdrawal reasonable, appropriate, and in the public interest.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim procedural ruling that issued a summons compelling the production of a Wagg brief in a grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that it is premature to judicially review interlocutory decisions of administrative decision-makers.

The court found that the arbitrator has the authority to rule on her own jurisdiction and procedural matters, and that fragmenting the arbitration process would frustrate legislative goals.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the human rights application or strike portions of it, arguing it was based on confidential information improperly obtained by the applicant from a co-worker in breach of an arbitrator's order and the implied undertaking rule.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant knew of the confidentiality breaches to constitute an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also held that the documents were not protected by absolute privilege or the equitable doctrine of confidentiality.