Sarah Molyneaux

Following a decision upholding a student's expulsion, the parties engaged in an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The respondent school board sought an order varying the CFSRB's standard confidentiality order to permit the use of records and evidence from the expulsion appeal in the HRTO proceeding.

The CFSRB granted the request, directing that each party is permitted to rely on their own affidavits and exhibits in the HRTO application, provided the pupil's identity continues to be protected.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of her 7-year-old son, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, from his French immersion school following a physical assault on an educational assistant that resulted in a concussion and PTSD.

The Child and Family Services Review Board considered whether mitigating factors, such as the pupil's inability to control or understand the consequences of his behaviour, rendered the expulsion inappropriate.

The Board found that while the pupil could not control his behaviour, his continuing presence in the school created an unacceptable risk to the safety of staff and students.

The Board confirmed the expulsion, noting that the school board had made extensive efforts to accommodate the pupil and that a fresh start in an English-language program would likely be beneficial.

The applicant, a daycare teacher, sought judicial review of decisions by the respondent children's aid society verifying an allegation of risk of sexual harm against him.

The Divisional Court found that the respondent's investigation was fundamentally flawed, superficial, and failed to follow mandatory investigative steps, such as interviewing key witnesses and examining the physical layout of the daycare.

The court quashed the respondent's decisions, finding them unreasonable, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the appellant's registration as a gaming assistant, relying on her past conduct during an investigation into criminal charges that were ultimately withdrawn.

The appellant appealed the proposed order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's unassailable ten-year work record and the withdrawal of the criminal charges outweighed the Registrar's concerns regarding her credibility in a previous hearing.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposed order.

The plaintiff, a 26-year employee, sued his former employer for constructive dismissal after he was removed from his long-standing position as a dock supervisor and offered a newly created, lesser role as a freight analyst.

The employer alleged performance issues, which the court found were unsubstantiated and part of a targeted effort to find fault.

The court held that the unilateral change in duties constituted a fundamental breach of the employment contract, amounting to constructive dismissal.

The court further found that the plaintiff was not required to mitigate his damages by accepting the demeaning new position in a toxic work environment.

The plaintiff was awarded 18 months' reasonable notice, but his claim for moral damages was dismissed.