Maurice Green

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal.

Both the applicant and the respondents filed multiple requests for particulars and production of documents.

The applicant also requested to add a school council as an affected party.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for particulars and production as premature, noting that early production is only required in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to add the school council as an affected party, finding no basis for the request, but permitted the council to file a Request to Intervene if it chose to do so.

The applicant, a high school English teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his colleagues and the school board.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations of discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin had a reasonable prospect of success and allowed them to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegations concerning the time period prior to April 16, 2009, as the applicant could not establish an intention to retaliate for a claim of Code rights before that date.

The respondent school board brought a request to dismiss the applicant teacher's human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had previously grieved his suspension, and an arbitrator had dismissed the grievance after considering an independent medical examination and concluding that the applicant was unfit to perform his duties and could not be accommodated.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitration was a proceeding within the meaning of the Code and that the arbitrator had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's principles in Figliola regarding finality and the avoidance of duplicative proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a Black teacher, filed human rights complaints against his school board, his union (OSSTF), and the Ontario College of Teachers, alleging racial discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents OSSTF and the College requested the dismissal of the applications against them.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations against the school board and OSSTF for falling outside the one-year limitation period, finding the applicant's bald assertion of fear of reprisal insufficient to establish good faith for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applications against OSSTF and the College entirely, finding that their communications regarding the applicant's representation did not amount to a breach of the Code.

The application against the school board was permitted to continue regarding the remaining timely allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being removed from the workplace.

The respondent and the applicant's union indicated that a grievance based on the same facts had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator had found that the grievor committed serious misconduct but revoked all discipline, including a transfer, because an initial reprimand was given without union representation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that while the arbitrator reasonably found a breach of the representation clause, automatically revoking the transfer was unreasonable given the irrevocable breakdown of the working relationship.

The court quashed the revocation of the transfer but upheld the revocation of the suspension.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of incompetence against the member set out in the Notice of Hearing.

The member consented to the motion.

Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations without a hearing.

The member pleaded no contest to professional misconduct for conduct unbecoming a member after pleading guilty to simple possession of marijuana in criminal court, for which he received an absolute discharge.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and publication of a summary of the decision without the member's name, noting that the conduct did not involve students or take place in a school environment.

The member, an occasional teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being criminally convicted of possessing child pornography and breaching a recognizance that prohibited contact with minors.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.

Finding the member's conduct disgraceful and dishonourable, and noting the lack of forensic evidence suggesting he would not reoffend, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of his certificate of qualification and registration.

The Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The Member admitted to making, possessing, and distributing child pornography, including superimposing students' faces onto explicit images, and using school equipment for these purposes.

The Member had previously pleaded guilty to related criminal charges and was sentenced to one year of incarceration.

The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, finding the Member's actions deplorable and a breach of trust.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of qualification and registration.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for discussing his employment as a bouncer at a strip club with an 18-year-old female student, including discussing her previous experience stripping.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering that the member be admonished and complete a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries with students.

The Ontario College of Teachers and the member brought a joint motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing.

The College advised that there was no evidence to support the allegations.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations, finding the resolution to be in the public interest.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for inappropriately touching a student's buttocks.

The member had previously pleaded guilty to common assault in criminal court and received a conditional discharge.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The member was ordered to be reprimanded, with the reprimand recorded on the register for one year, and a summary of the decision published.

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

The member admitted to poking a student on the buttock and had previously pled guilty to common assault under the Criminal Code.

The Discipline Committee accepted the member's guilty plea and found him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession, abusing a student, and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and publication of a summary of the decision including the member's name.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct following a criminal conviction for assault that occurred outside the school setting.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The member was reprimanded, required to provide proof of successful completion of anger management and psychological counselling, and the decision was ordered to be published.

At a discipline hearing, the Ontario College of Teachers sought leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The member's wife had retracted her allegations, which had formed the basis of the charges, explaining she was suffering from postpartum depression at the time.

The related criminal charges had also been withdrawn.

The Discipline Committee granted the College's application and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations.

The Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The misconduct stemmed from multiple criminal convictions, including assaulting a peace officer, uttering threats, and resisting arrest, as well as submitting fraudulent documents and forging a signature to obtain a mortgage.

The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a one-year suspension of the Member's certificate and requiring proof of medical fitness before returning to teaching.

The Discipline Committee reconvened to determine whether an interim publication ban regarding a teacher found guilty of professional misconduct should be lifted.

After reviewing a psychiatric report, the Committee ordered that the findings be published in the College's official publication without identifying factors.

However, the interim publication ban was otherwise lifted, and the Registrar was directed to make necessary notations on the Public Register and notify employers to protect the public interest.

Following an appeal decision, the appellant requested that the court direct a reference to the Master to resolve an ongoing dispute concerning the quantification of fees and potential damages for an invalid suspension.

The Court of Appeal declined to direct a reference or a trial of an issue, finding merit in allowing the parties to state the dispute in their own terms and leaving it to them to commence whatever action they see fit.

The Ontario Teachers' Federation (OTF) appealed a decision declaring its By-law X invalid.

By-law X required its affiliates, including the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), to collect and remit membership fees to OTF, and allowed OTF to suspend an affiliate for default.

The OSSTF had withheld a portion of the fees designated for the Canadian Teachers' Federation.

The Court of Appeal held that sections 1-5 of By-law X, which established the fee collection mechanism, were validly enacted under the Corporations Act as a matter of internal management.

However, section 6, which permitted the suspension of an affiliate, was ultra vires because it interfered with the OSSTF's statutorily protected role within the OTF.

The appeal was allowed in part.