Patrick James

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for submitting false claims under her employer's group benefit plan.

Between 2011 and 2016, the member submitted false claims totaling $15,323 and split the funds with a facilitator.

The member admitted to the allegations and entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct, including misappropriation of property and falsifying records.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and conditions requiring meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendants failed to close on a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for $2,250,000 but failed to pay the second deposit and repudiated the contract due to financing issues.

The plaintiffs relisted the property and eventually sold it for $1,770,000.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages by not relisting at a lower price immediately.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the plaintiffs acted reasonably in their mitigation efforts, and granted summary judgment for the difference in sale price plus special damages.

The respondent school board requested to defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of a grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding minimal overlap between the application, which alleged 16 instances of discrimination and failure to accommodate, and the grievance, which related to a single incident of excessive discipline.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not initiate the grievance and it was at an early stage.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the location of an ATM machine and a designated use request for a commercial condominium unit.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicant lacked personal standing because the lease agreement and unit ownership belonged to his corporation and spouse, respectively.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the ATM allegations were barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant's corporation had already commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking remedies for the same alleged discrimination.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought multiple requests for interim orders, including requests to amend the application, compel document production, and order the respondent to translate documents.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to increase the damages claimed and add a new remedy, as the respondent did not object.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to add new reprisal allegations due to a lack of supporting details.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce its arguably relevant documents but declined to order the translation of Chinese correspondence.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent, a speech-language pathologist, including failure to supervise support personnel and irregular billing practices.

During the hearing, the respondent notified the College of her decision to close her practice and resign from the College.

The respondent requested that the allegations be withdrawn and removed from the public register.

The Discipline Committee determined it had continuing jurisdiction despite the resignation and could not dismiss the allegations or remove them from the register without the College's consent.

With the consent of both parties, the Committee ordered the hearing adjourned sine die.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent, a speech-language pathologist, including failure to supervise support personnel and irregular billing practices.

During the hearing, the respondent notified the College of her decision to close her practice and resign from the College.

The respondent requested that the allegations be withdrawn and removed from the public register.

The Discipline Committee determined it had continuing jurisdiction despite the resignation and could not dismiss the allegations or remove them from the register without the College's consent.

With the consent of both parties, the Committee ordered the hearing adjourned sine die.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

After the hearing commenced and the applicant was cross-examined, he failed to comply with a Tribunal order for further disclosure.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw his application, citing medical reasons.

The respondent requested that the withdrawal be with prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal with prejudice, noting that unlike cases where applications are withdrawn before a hearing, the hearing in this matter had already commenced and the applicant had testified.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding termination of employment sought an interim order to access the applicant's personal health information held by its Occupational Health and Claims Management Section, and for an extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant consented to the access but sought to limit disclosure and the length of the extension.

The Tribunal granted the request to access the health information, limiting disclosure to necessary disclosures only, and granted a 15-day extension of time for the respondent to file its Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability by her employer.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the allegations relating to events prior to May 2011 as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the earlier events did not constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Code due to significant temporal gaps.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2), as pursuing other avenues of redress does not justify a delay in filing a human rights application.

The allegations prior to May 2011 were dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, while the timely allegation regarding the termination of employment was permitted to continue.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to characterize the cancellation of her shifts in April 2011 as racial or ethnic discrimination for which the respondent hospital is vicariously liable, rather than as a reprisal.

The applicant also requested to add new allegations of discriminatory comments made by co-workers in early 2012.

The Tribunal granted both amendments, finding that the respondent would not suffer prejudice and that combining the allegations was the most efficient manner to proceed.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an internal workplace discrimination and harassment prevention policy investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation is not a legal proceeding that could lead to inconsistent findings of fact and law, and therefore deferral was not appropriate.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the respondent Hospital to produce copies of work assignment schedules.

The applicant sought these documents to identify dates of alleged discrimination for the purpose of participating in the Hospital's internal investigation of new allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it has no jurisdiction to supervise internal investigations and that the request for document disclosure was premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a registered nurse, filed a human rights application alleging racial and ethnic discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by her employer hospital and her union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the hospital had reasonably investigated the applicant's complaints and that there was no evidence supporting the reprisal allegations against either the hospital or the union.

These portions of the application were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why she should be permitted to amend her application to include new allegations regarding the cancellation of her shifts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory discipline and harassment on the basis of disability following her return from medical leave.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed four workplace grievances regarding the same incidents of discipline.

Finding significant overlap in the subject matter and a risk of inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability following her return from medical leave.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, denied the request to dismiss as no other proceeding had yet dealt with the substance of the application, and ordered the parties to provide further information regarding the status of the grievances before deciding on deferral.

The applicants, minors acting through their mother as next friend, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent swim club discriminated against them based on race and subjected them to reprisals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address preliminary issues, including timeliness, a request to amend the application, and whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations outside the one-year statutory deadline.

The request to amend the application to add new allegations for one applicant (R.B.) was denied, and her application was dismissed.

The request to amend for the other applicant (J.B.) was granted.

The Tribunal found that J.B.'s allegation of racial discrimination had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to a merits hearing, but dismissed his allegation of reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age-related harassment and discrimination in employment.

He subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his application to include specific details of events occurring after a November 2008 settlement.

The Tribunal found the nature and scope of the proposed amendments unclear and directed the applicant to file specific details of the proposed amendments and supporting submissions before deciding on the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment by his supervisor.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release in November 2008 resolving two grievances, including one for age discrimination.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with allegations of events prior to the November 2008 settlement would be an abuse of process.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application were struck to the extent they related to events preceding the settlement, while the remainder of the application was allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services and reprisal by his employer and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding his return to work and accommodation of his disability.

The WSIB requested an order to dismiss the application, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review its adjudicative decisions.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss at this preliminary stage, finding it was not clear that the allegations related solely to the WSIB's adjudicative function, and allowed the application to proceed in the normal course.