Lisa Feinberg

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct, alleging inappropriate physical contact with students, including tapping a student with his foot and pulling chairs out from under seated students.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations and agreed to a statement of uncontested facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for physically abusing students, failing to comply with the Act and regulations, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the successful completion of an anger management course.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally, physically, and psychologically abusing racialized students in his class.

The Member admitted to making racist, demeaning, and threatening comments, using profanity, and engaging in physically aggressive behaviour such as kicking chairs and flicking a student's head.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of coursework in anger management, classroom management, and cultural diversity.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct relating to the sexual assault of a student during the 1982/1983 academic year.

The College relied on findings of fact from a 2020 civil judgment in which the member was found liable for assault, battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Discipline Committee found that the member engaged in professional misconduct by failing to uphold the ethical standards of the profession, failing to show consistent justice and consideration, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the member's teaching certificate, a written reprimand, and $5,000 in costs.

The Member, an occasional elementary school teacher, was subject to a COVID-19 immunization disclosure policy requiring unvaccinated employees to submit rapid antigen test (RAT) results.

The Member repeatedly submitted false information and duplicate photographs of RAT results to her school board, even after being reminded of the proper procedures.

The Member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of failing to keep records, issuing false documents, falsifying records, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, and unbecoming conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and required the Member to complete coursework on ethical practice.

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

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member engaged in professional misconduct, ordered a reprimand, revoked the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and ordered the Member to pay $5,000 in costs.

A publication ban was ordered to protect the identity of a witness and a person under 18.

The appellant sought leave to challenge refusals to extend time to appeal multiple Part III provincial offence sentences for driving without insurance, relying on fresh evidence of serious mental illness and inability to pay.

The court held that it has jurisdiction under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act to hear, with leave, an appeal from a judgment denying an extension of time under s. 85 in a Part III proceeding.

Although the motion judge made no reversible error on the record then before him, the court admitted fresh psychiatric and financial evidence under the Palmer test and concluded that the interests of justice warranted sentence relief.

The total outstanding fines were reduced to $5000 with two years to pay.

The applicant, a preferred temporary employee with a disability, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him by failing to award him a full-time forklift position, removing a modified work assignment, delaying information to the WSIB, and failing to provide timely ROEs and T4s.

The Tribunal found that the payroll and WSIB delays were due to administrative issues and the seasonal nature of the work, not discrimination.

The modified work assignment ended due to a seasonal reduction in product demand.

Regarding the forklift position, the Tribunal found that the successful candidate had more experience and that the applicant could not perform the essential lifting duties of the role due to his medical restrictions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement governing shift assignments for transit operators.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's method of assigning work on the spare board violated the agreement, interpreting provisions related to vacant shifts and wind down operators.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application.

The court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, including her reliance on past practice to resolve an ambiguity, to be defensible and reasonable.

The City of Hamilton sought judicial review of two arbitration awards regarding bus driver scheduling and seniority.

The union brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review, alleging bad faith, undue delay, and abuse of process.

The City brought a cross-motion to stay the arbitrator's decisions pending the judicial review.

A single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed both motions, finding that the issues, including the admissibility of affidavit evidence, were better left to be determined by the full panel of the Divisional Court scheduled to hear the application.