Richard Sinclair

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to exclude her child from school under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act due to safety concerns.

The school board disputed the Child and Family Services Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Board only has authority to hear appeals of expulsions, not exclusions.

The Board agreed, finding that the exclusion was not a disciplinary measure or an effective expulsion, but rather a safety measure with clear conditions for return.

As there was no expulsion decision to review, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to redesignate her daughter to a different secondary school following a 20-day suspension for an altercation with a vice-principal.

The appellant argued the redesignation amounted to a de facto expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the student was not formally expelled or excluded from an educational program, as the transfer was an administrative safe schools transfer under progressive discipline policies.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed a 'safe schools transfer' decision by the respondent school board, arguing it amounted to a de facto expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that because the students were suspended and transferred rather than expelled, the Board lacked jurisdiction under the Education Act to hear the appeal.

The Board made no order on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied a day replacement position.

The applicant also filed a grievance with his union regarding the same issue, which was referred to arbitration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the facts and issues in both proceedings were identical and that proceeding simultaneously would create a substantial risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant alleged sex discrimination after being prevented from running for the board of the Essex County Soccer Association because she had not resigned her position with a local soccer club.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the respondents' actions to her sex, and that a single incident of being questioned about her soccer knowledge did not amount to a Code violation.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant union fined the respondents for crossing a picket line during a legal strike.

The fine was equal to their gross pay for the days worked.

When the respondents refused to pay, the union sought to enforce the fines in Small Claims Court.

The respondents brought an application in the Superior Court, where the judge found the fine provision in the union constitution to be an unenforceable penalty clause and unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the union's appeal, upholding the finding that the fine was unconscionable due to inequality of bargaining power and the substantial unfairness of a fine equivalent to gross pay.