Linda R. Rothstein

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct relating to the misappropriation of narcotics.

During the discipline hearing, it was revealed that a panel member served on a hospital committee with the principal witness against the appellant, but this was not disclosed until deliberations had begun.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the undisclosed relationship and subsequent conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias that vitiated the panel's decision.

Given the circumstantial evidence, poor hospital record-keeping, and the passage of time, the Court quashed the decision and ordered a stay of proceedings rather than a rehearing.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a registered nurse for making inappropriate, judgmental comments to a patient's father regarding the patient's responsibility for his motor vehicle accident injuries and the resulting cost to the health care system.

The Member admitted to the allegation of contravening a standard of practice.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts, found the Member committed professional misconduct, and ordered a reprimand to be recorded on the Public Register, noting the Member's remorse and mitigating personal circumstances.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for a declaration that the Ministry of Natural Resources' contract with two individuals to operate Fitzroy Provincial Park constituted a transfer of an undertaking under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act.

The Board found that the contractors were operating the park for their own account, assuming financial risks, and using the physical assets and similar jobs as formerly performed by Crown employees.

The Board concluded that the transaction was analogous to a lease or franchise and declared it a transfer of an undertaking from the Crown to an employer.

During a hearing into an application for certification, the Board investigated allegations that the applicant union submitted membership evidence indicating employees had paid one dollar when they had not.

The Board found that one employee had not paid the dollar, rendering his card invalid.

However, the Board accepted the evidence of union officials over a conflicting witness regarding another card, concluding that the remaining membership documents were reliable despite procedural irregularities.

The matter was relisted for continuation.

The applicants, two secretaries employed by the Niagara South Board of Education, applied under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act for an exemption from paying union dues to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) based on their religious convictions.

They objected to the union's affiliation with the Ontario Federation of Labour's pro-choice resolution on abortion, the union's constitutional defence of the right to strike, and the lack of reference to God in the union's oath.

The Board applied the Wybenga test and found that the applicants' beliefs were sincerely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of their objection to paying dues.

The Board granted the applications, ordering that the dues be remitted to a mutually agreed charitable organization.

One Board member dissented, arguing that objections to non-collective bargaining issues like abortion resolutions should not justify a total exemption from dues.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer the matter to arbitration.

Applying the Valdi deferral doctrine, the Board found that the dispute over a payment to the intervener was essentially a contractual issue that could be resolved by an arbitrator.

The Board granted the motion and deferred the complaint to arbitration, retaining jurisdiction in the event the arbitrator failed to deal with the unfair labour practice issues.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union had requested conciliation for a 1984-1985 collective agreement, but the employer objected, arguing that the union failed to give timely notice to bargain under the 1983-1984 agreement, resulting in its automatic renewal.

The Board found that the union's late notice, given months after the agreement's expiry, did not constitute valid notice under section 53(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the collective agreement was automatically renewed, and the Minister lacked the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The complainant national union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent employer contravened section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to bargain exclusively with a trustee appointed by the national union.

The local union had voted to disaffiliate and challenged the trusteeship's validity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer was willing to bargain in good faith but was thwarted by the internal union dispute over bargaining rights, and was not using the dispute as a pretext to avoid its obligations.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent, a professional engineering firm, argued it was not an employer in the construction industry as it acted merely as an agent for the owner and contracted out 98% of the work.

The Board found that the respondent directly employed two labourers, directed their work, and paid them.

Applying previous jurisprudence, the Board held that an entity need not have construction as its primary business to be an employer in the construction industry, and concluded the respondent met the statutory definition.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith by repudiating a memorandum of agreement.

The parties had resolved all outstanding issues and signed a memorandum subject to ratification.

Before ratification, the respondent acquired a related company and subsequently refused to ratify the agreement unless the union agreed to amend the recognition clause to explicitly exclude the employees of the newly acquired company.

The Board held that the respondent's insistence on altering the recognition clause to avoid the potential application of the related employer provisions of the Labour Relations Act was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and constituted a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith.