Toronto School Bd. v. OSSTF (1997), 208 N.R. 245 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
The Board of Education for the City of Toronto (appellant) v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 15 (Toronto), Owen Shime, Q.C., A.S. Merritt and L.A. Jones (respondents)
(24724)
Indexed As: Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation District 15 et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé,
Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,
Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
February 27, 1997.
Summary:
A teacher wrote threatening and extremely defamatory letters to his Director of Education. The Board of Education dismissed the teacher for professional misconduct. The teacher filed a grievance and a board of arbitration was appointed.
The board of arbitration allowed the grievance, reinstated the teacher with a penalty and on conditions. The Board of Education applied for judicial review.
The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 52 O.A.C. 8, allowed the application for judicial review and quashed the decision of the board of arbitration. The teacher’s union appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 80 O.A.C. 153, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Divisional Court and dismissed the application for judicial review. The Board of Education appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and quashed the board of arbitration’s award.
Administrative Law – Topic 9103
Boards and tribunals – Judicial review – Scope of review – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “[i]n order to decide whether a decision of an administrative tribunal is patently unreasonable, a court may examine the record to determine the basis for the challenged findings of fact or law made by the tribunal. … in those circumstances where the arbitral findings in issue are based upon inferences made from the evidence, it is necessary for a reviewing court to examine the evidence that formed the basis for the inference. I would stress that this is
not
to say that a court should weigh the evidence as if the matter were before it for the first time. It must be remembered that even if a court disagrees with the way in which the tribunal has weighed the evidence and reached its conclusions, it can only substitute its opinion for that of the tribunal where the evidence viewed reasonably is incapable of supporting the tribunal’s findings.” – See paragraphs 47, 48.
Administrative Law – Topic 9118
Boards and tribunals – Judicial review – Curial deference to decisions of tribunals – The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated the law respecting degree of deference owed to various administrative tribunals – See paragraph 34.
Arbitration – Topic 8403
Judicial review – Grounds – Misconduct – Unreasonable or patently unreasonable interpretation – [See third
Education – Topic
6278
].
Education – Topic 6278
Teachers – Dismissal – Grounds – Professional misconduct – Section 264 of the Ontario Education Act set out the professional standards that teachers were required to meet – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the requirements set by s. 264 reflected the ideal standard and that not every breach could be considered to infringe upon the values that were essential to the make-up of a good teacher – “However, the section does indicate that teachers are very properly expected to maintain a higher standard of conduct than other employees because they occupy such an extremely important position in society. … an employer will only be justified in disciplining a teacher in cases of a significant breach of the section.” – See paragraphs 52, 53.
Education – Topic 6278
Teachers – Dismissal – Grounds – Professional misconduct – Section 264 of the Ontario Education Act set out the professional standards that teachers were required to meet – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “[s]ection 264(1) requires teachers to inculcate by precept and example the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity and benevolence. These are values that all parents wish their children to learn. In their position of trust, teachers must teach by example as well as by lesson, and that example is set just as much by their conduct outside the classroom as by their performance within it. Thus misconduct which occurs outside regular teaching hours can be the basis for discipline proceedings.” – See paragraph 54.
Education – Topic 6278
Teachers – Dismissal – Grounds – Professional misconduct – A teacher wrote threatening and extremely defamatory letters to his Director of Education – He was dismissed for professional misconduct – An arbitration board, allowed the teacher’s grievance and reinstated him because he was “not beyond redemption” and his conduct “was temporary and not likely to be repeated in the future” – The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the decision, where the evidence that the misconduct was not temporary was overwhelming and there was no evidence reasonably capable of supporting the conclusion that the misconduct was a momentary aberration – The absence of supporting evidence rendered the decision patently unreasonable and there was no basis for the “leap of faith” that the teacher could return to the classroom – See paragraphs 1 to 79.
Education – Topic 6290
Teachers – Dismissal – Grounds – Off-duty conduct – [See second and third
Education – Topic 6278
].
Education – Topic 6401
Teachers – Discipline of – General – A teacher filed a grievance, asserting that he had been dismissed without just cause – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “[i]n deciding whether there is just cause for the imposition of the particular form of discipline selected by the employer, arbitrators must assess the seriousness of the misconduct in the context of the existing circumstances. These circumstances include, where appropriate, such matters as the seniority and the past performance of the teacher. As well, it is essential that arbitrators recognize the sensitivity of the educational setting and ensure that a person who is clearly incapable of adequately fulfilling the duties of a teacher both inside and outside the classroom is not returned to the classroom. Both the vulnerability of students and the need for public confidence in the education system demand such caution. …” – See paragraph 57.
Education – Topic 6461
Teachers – Duties – General – [See first
Education – Topic 6278
].
Education – Topic 6468
Teachers – Duties – Off-duty conduct – [See second
Education – Topic 6278
].
Labour Law – Topic 6035
Industrial relations – Complaints – Unjust dismissal – General – A teacher filed a grievance, asserting that he had been dismissed without just cause – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “[t]he first step in any inquiry as to whether an employee has been dismissed for ‘just cause’ is to ask whether the employee is actually responsible for the misconduct alleged by the employer. The second step is to assess whether the misconduct gives rise to just cause for discipline. The final step is to determine whether the disciplinary measures selected by the employer are appropriate in light of the misconduct and the other relevant circumstances.” – See paragraph 49.
Labour Law – Topic 7052
Industrial relations – Collective agreement – Enforcement – Arbitration – Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board – Evidence – A teacher wrote threatening and extremely defamatory letters to his Director of Education – He was dismissed for professional misconduct – An arbitration board, allowed the teacher’s grievance and reinstated him because he was “not beyond redemption” and his conduct “was temporary and not likely to be repeated in the future” – The board made no reference to a letter written by the teacher after his dismissal which, although less objectionable, expressed the same views as in the earlier letters – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the board erred in not considering the subsequent letter – Subsequent evidence could be considered “if it helps to shed light on the reasonableness and appropriateness of the dismissal” – See paragraphs 72 to 74.
Labour Law – Topic 7118
Industrial relations – Collective agreement – Enforcement – Arbitration – Interpretation – Judicial review – Judicial deference to arbitration process – The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated the law respecting the high degree of deference owed to labour arbitration boards – See paragraphs 35 to 37.
Labour Law – Topic 9120
Public service labour relations – Grievances – Evidence and proof – [See
Labour Law – Topic 7052
].
Labour Law – Topic 9154
Public service labour relations – Discipline and dismissal of civil or public servants – Dismissal – What constitutes cause for – [See third
Education – Topic 6278
and
Labour Law – Topic 6035
].
Labour Law – Topic 9169
Public service labour relations – Discipline and dismissal of civil or public servants – Discipline – General – [See
Education – Topic 6401
].
Cases Noticed:
Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 34].
Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, consd. [para. 35].
Heustis v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 768; 27 N.R. 103; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 613; 51 A.P.R. 613; 98 D.L.R.(3d) 622; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,200, refd to. [para. 36].
Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 476; 55 N.R. 194; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 84 C.L.L.C. 14,070; 14 Admin. L.R. 133, refd to. [para. 36].
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 39].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 39].
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, refd to. [para. 42].
McConnell, Hopkinson, Wilson and Benjamin v. Douglas Aircraft Co. of Canada Ltd. and O’Shea, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 245; 29 N.R. 109, consd. [para. 44].
Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; 123 N.R. 241; 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 274 A.P.R. 15; 91 C.L.L.C. 14,002; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 48 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 45].
National Corn Growers Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 47].
Etobicoke (City) Board of Education v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, Local 12 (1981), 2 L.A.C.(3d) 265 (Ont.), consd. [para. 52].
Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, consd. [para. 55].
Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 – see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.
R. v. Audet (Y.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171; 197 N.R. 172; 175 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 446 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 55].
Wellington (County) Board of Education v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (1991), 24 L.A.C.(4th) 110 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 56].
Compagnie minière Québec Cartier v. Métallurgistes unis d’Amérique, local 6869, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1095; 183 N.R. 313, refd to. [para. 74].
Cie minière Québec Cartier v. Quebec (Grievances Arbitrator) – see Compagnie minière Québec Cartier v. Métallurgistes unis d’Amérique, local 6869.
Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244; 35 Admin. L.R. 153, refd to. [para. 81].
Union des employès de services, Local 298 v. Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 81].
Greenaway v. Board of Education of Seven Oaks School District No. 10 (1990), 70 Man.R.(2d) 2 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1991] 1 S.C.R. ix; 135 N.R. 318; 78 Man.R.(2d) 160, refd to. [para. 88].
Kraychy v. Board of Education of Edmonton Public School District No. 7 (1990), 105 A.R. 20; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 69 (Bd. of Ref.), refd to. [para. 88].
Statutes Noticed:
Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-2, sect. 264(1) [para. 51].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Stubbs, William, The Constitutional History of England (4th Ed. 1987), vol. 1, p. 198 [para. 93].
Counsel:
Christopher G. Riggs, Q.C., Andrea F. Raso and Timothy P. Liznick, for the appellant;
Maurice A. Green and Margaret Correia, for the respondent, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 15 (Toronto).
Solicitors of Record:
Hicks, Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Golden, Green & Chercover, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Ontario
Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 15 (Toronto).
This appeal was heard on November 6, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on February 27, 1997, and the following opinions were filed:
Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 79;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J. – see paragraphs 80 to 100.
