Tyler Curtis Boggs

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for professional misconduct, including sleeping on shift, failing to provide timely care, failing to document properly, and failing to follow a Code Blue policy.

The member admitted to the allegations but argued that her experiences of systemic anti-Black racism in the workplace should be considered a mitigating factor in determining the penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

While acknowledging the existence of systemic racism, the Committee concluded there was insufficient evidence connecting the racism experienced to the specific misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and remedial terms on the member's certificate of registration.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a second Charter challenge to Ontario's election advertising spending restrictions (Bill 307), which the Attorney General successfully defended.

The Attorney General sought $580,652.54 in costs.

The Applicants argued against a costs award, citing the public importance of constitutional litigation and access to justice, and challenged the quantum of costs.

The court rejected the Applicants' access to justice argument, noting their financial capacity, and found the Attorney General's choice of external counsel and the work performed to be reasonable.

The court awarded the Attorney General $500,000 in all-inclusive costs, apportioned among the Applicant groups.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act that imposed a 12-month pre-writ restricted spending period for third-party political advertising.

The government had previously enacted similar amendments that were struck down under section 2(b) of the Charter, but re-enacted them using the section 33 notwithstanding clause.

The applicants argued the amendments violated the right to vote under section 3 of the Charter, which is not subject to the notwithstanding clause.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the spending limits were carefully tailored to the egalitarian model of elections and did not infringe the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

The applicant nurses' union sought judicial review of two directives issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health regarding COVID-19 infection control and the use of N95 respirators.

The applicants argued the directives failed to account for aerosol and asymptomatic transmission and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the directives were reasonable as they expressly incorporated the precautionary principle and permitted nurses to access N95 respirators based on their professional judgment.

This was a costs endorsement following a successful constitutional application challenging provisions of election finance legislation under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court held that partial indemnity remained the appropriate scale because the respondent government's conduct was professional and did not justify substantial or full indemnity costs.

In fixing a fair overall award, the court emphasized that four applicant groups had advanced identical legal challenges in a consolidated proceeding, and that economies of scale had to be reflected in the result.

The court reduced the aggregate request from approximately $690,000 to $500,000 and apportioned that amount among the successful applicants.

No costs were awarded for or against the Chief Electoral Officer or the intervenor.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act that extended the pre-election restricted spending period for third-party political advertising from six to twelve months.

The court found that the 12-month restriction infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Oakes test, the court held that while the objective of fostering fair elections was pressing and substantial, the 12-month period failed the minimal impairment test because the government's own experts indicated a six-month period was effective.

The impugned provisions were declared of no force or effect.

The applicants in a constitutional application requested leave to file factums exceeding the 30-page limit prescribed by the Practice Direction.

The Attorney General opposed the request.

The court denied the request, emphasizing that the 30-page limit is a serious policy intended to focus counsel on the issues, and that leave is exceptional and granted sparingly.

The court noted that since there was still a week before the factums were due, counsel had sufficient time to produce shorter, more focused versions.

The applicants, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others, brought an application against the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application, with reasons to follow.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against four long-term care (LTC) facilities experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, alleging breaches of Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Directives regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control.

The ONA contended that the facilities failed to provide necessary PPE, particularly N95 masks, and implement appropriate administrative controls like isolating and cohorting residents and staff.

The facilities argued they complied with directives and that the ONA sought control over scarce resources.

The court found that the matter, though a labour dispute, required the court's inherent jurisdiction due to the inability to expedite arbitral processes.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm to nurses and residents.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, prioritizing health and safety.

The court ordered the LTC facilities to provide nurses with access to N95 respirators and other appropriate PPE based on point-of-care assessment and to implement administrative controls as per CMOH Directives.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing grievances filed on behalf of an employee who was placed on indefinite layoff.

The employee, a cleaner, was banned from the work site by the third-party property owner.

The employer, having no other work for the employee under the single-site collective agreement, laid her off rather than terminating her for just cause.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov and found that the arbitrator's decision was internally coherent and consistent with established labour jurisprudence regarding third-party site bans.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of a nurse who misappropriated narcotics from the respondent hospital.

The arbitrator found that the nurse was addicted to narcotics and would not have engaged in the misconduct 'but for' her addiction, yet dismissed the grievance.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the arbitrator unreasonably applied an outdated legal test for prima facie discrimination rather than the established three-part test confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The award was set aside and the grievance remitted to a new arbitrator.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding a work jurisdiction dispute over exterior concrete formwork at a hospital construction project.

The Board had upheld the employer's assignment of the work to a composite crew of Carpenters and Labourers, finding that the Labourers' collective agreement did not explicitly claim the disputed work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that the Board was not bound to follow its prior decisions where the circumstances or arguments differed.