Melanie Reist

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct, including sexual abuse and failing to maintain professional boundaries with students.

The member admitted to the allegations, which involved inappropriate touching, making sexualized comments, and inviting students to his home and car.

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

The Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the immediate revocation of his teaching certificate along with a written reprimand, emphasizing that his behaviour was an abuse of his trusted position and demonstrated a profound lack of professional judgment.

The College of Teachers brought a motion to withdraw an allegation of sexual abuse against the member, presenting an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea that did not include an admission to sexual abuse.

The Discipline Committee rejected the joint submission and denied the motion to withdraw the allegation, finding that the admitted facts—which included inappropriate touching and remarks of a sexual nature—met the statutory definition of sexual abuse.

The Committee concluded that accepting the agreement would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute and be contrary to the public interest.

The applicants, a minor and her mother, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by a cooperative preschool.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The Tribunal consolidated the two applications, granted the request to anonymize the minor applicant's identity, and granted an adjournment due to the applicants' medical conditions following a motor vehicle collision.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for a summary hearing, finding that a full hearing on the merits was necessary.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove the personal respondents as parties, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability and could satisfy any remedies sought.

The applicant, a member of a private golf club who requires a power cart due to a mobility disability, alleged that the club discriminated against him by charging him the standard rental fee for power carts and refusing his request for a discount or to use his own single-rider cart.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant incurred higher expenses than members who walk, this did not amount to a substantive disadvantage or barrier to his participation.

The club's 'blue flag' policy already accommodated his disability by allowing greater access to the course, and the requirement to pay for the cart rental did not constitute prima facie discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and racial harassment by his neighbours, one of whom is a police officer, and by the Police Services Board in its investigation.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in a Police Services Act complaint and a peace bond proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that neither proceeding appropriately dealt with the human rights issues, as the PSA process lacked personal remedies and the peace bond proceeding focused on reasonable fear for safety rather than discrimination.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application following the completion of an appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and a peace bond application.

The respondents consented to the reactivation but requested a hearing to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with in the other proceedings.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and ordered that a hearing on the section 45.1 dismissal request be scheduled once the transcript of the peace bond proceeding is available.

The appellant, La-Z-Boy, appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent sales agent was an employee, not an independent contractor, and was entitled to 20 months' reasonable notice of termination.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that an employer-employee relationship existed, noting the appellant's extensive control over the respondent's sales activities.

The Court also held that a 60-day notice provision in the parties' annual agreement was unenforceable because the respondent received no fresh consideration for giving up his common law right to reasonable notice.

The appeal was dismissed.