Sara Erskine

The applicant, a part-time employee who suffered a workplace injury, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after the employer reduced her hours of work and subsequently disciplined her.

The employer had initially accommodated the applicant by providing her with more hours in a modified position than another employee with similar restrictions to avoid paying WSIB Loss of Earnings benefits.

The employer later equalized the hours between the two accommodated employees, resulting in a reduction of the applicant's hours.

The Tribunal found that equalizing the hours did not constitute discrimination and that the employer was not required to maintain unnecessary work.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding that the discipline imposed for attendance policy violations and inappropriate workplace comments was based on legitimate concerns and lacked retaliatory intent.

The Member, an audiologist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for prescribing hearing aids without being involved in patient assessment, selection, or validation, and for failing to keep adequate records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and an Agreed Statement of Facts was presented.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month remitted suspension, remedial education, random audits for two years, and $4,000 in costs.

The Member, an audiologist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for prescribing hearing aids without being involved in patient assessment, selection, or validation, and for failing to keep adequate records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and an Agreed Statement of Facts was presented.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month remitted suspension, remedial education, random audits for two years, and $4,000 in costs.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondent Suman engaged in insider tipping and both respondents traded on undisclosed material information regarding a corporate acquisition, the Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The respondents had already been subject to a US judgment ordering disgorgement and significant civil penalties for the same conduct.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans against Suman and five-year bans against Rahman.

Suman was ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $250,000 and disgorge $954,938.07, with credit given for any amounts paid under the US judgment.

The respondents were ordered to pay $250,000 jointly and severally for the costs of the investigation and hearing.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant could have filed a union grievance to deal with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, clarifying that section 45.1 only applies when another proceeding has actually dealt with the substance of the application, not when it merely could have.

As the relevant grievances had either been withdrawn or were not being pursued, no other proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer, her union, and several personal respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the union and union personal respondents had no reasonable prospect of success, whether the matter should be deferred to the WSIB, and whether the employer personal respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and union personal respondents, finding no factual foundation that the union's failure to file a grievance was based on discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal declined to defer the matter to the WSIB as there were no ongoing proceedings.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the employer personal respondents because the corporate respondents accepted vicarious liability for their actions.

The respondents brought a motion to exclude computer forensics evidence and a motion for a non-suit in an insider trading and tipping proceeding.

They argued that the software-generated evidence was unreliable hearsay and that the expert witness was biased and unqualified.

They also argued that Staff failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Commission dismissed the motion to exclude, finding that the software evidence possessed sufficient threshold reliability and that the expert's evidence was admissible, with issues of reliability going to weight.

The Commission also dismissed the non-suit motion, concluding that Staff's circumstantial evidence, taken at its highest, gave rise to reasonable inferences capable of supporting the allegations.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent violated a Cease Trade Order by giving instructions to sell shares in a corporate account over which he had sole trading authority.

The respondent argued that the order's exception permitting trading 'for his own account(s)' allowed trading through a corporate entity.

The Commission rejected this interpretation, finding that the exception did not allow trading through corporate vehicles, even if the respondent was the beneficial owner.

The Commission concluded that the respondent breached the Cease Trade Order and ordered a three-year trading ban, removal of exemptions, and $15,000 in costs.