William C. McDowell

The member, a teacher, faced discipline proceedings for physically assaulting a student by grabbing him by the neck and pushing him into a closet, and for sending unsolicited, inappropriate, and offensive letters to young female colleagues.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting his actions violated multiple provisions of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.

The Committee ordered a verbal reprimand and publication of the decision, taking into account the personal and financial embarrassment the member had already suffered through a public trial and employer penalties.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for falsely claiming to hold a Bachelor of Arts degree.

The member used this false credential to gain admission to a Bachelor of Education program, obtain a teaching certificate, and secure employment as a teacher.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting that her actions were disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of her Certificate of Qualification and Registration and imposed a $2,000 fine.

Cross-appeals arose from a sixth municipal prosecution alleging campground zoning violations involving camp lots located too close to a residential zone boundary.

The defendants sought reinstatement of a stay for abuse of process based on repeated prosecutions and prejudice, while the prosecutor sought restoration of convictions entered after the justice of the peace had already stayed the charges.

The court held the defendants had not met the stringent "clearest of cases" standard for a stay under s. 7 of the Charter, particularly in the context of ongoing regulatory land-use offences.

It further held that the convictions could not be restored because the justice of the peace required the defence of legal non-conforming use to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt instead of on a balance of probabilities.

Both appeals were dismissed and the order for a new trial was affirmed.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for libel.

The defendants pleaded alternative defamatory meanings and sought to justify them.

The motions judge struck out the defendants' particulars on the basis that they were oppressive to the plaintiffs, relying on the Polly Peck approach adopted in Pizza Pizza.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the court cannot strike a pleading or particulars in a libel action that are relevant, necessary, and of reasonable probative value solely on the ground of oppression.

The court must balance the probative value against the prejudicial effect under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant challenged a decision arising from a preliminary hearing in a prosecution involving alleged sexual touching during a medical examination.

The Court of Appeal held there was some evidence on which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find that the appellant squeezed the complainant's breasts and placed his hand underneath her pants for a sexual, rather than medical, purpose.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The applicant ballet company sought a stay of an interim arbitral award that suspended the non-renewal of the respondent dancer's employment contract and ordered her reinstatement pending a final decision.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to order reinstatement under the Labour Relations Act.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there was a serious question to be tried regarding jurisdiction, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondent, as a further hiatus in dancing would likely end her career, whereas the applicant would not suffer a fatal blow if she were reinstated.