An Ontario elementary school teacher’s challenge against the Peel District School Board’s refusal to grant him a specific teaching position due to medical restrictions has been dismissed by the Superior Court, marking the conclusion of a legal battle that centered on workplace accommodation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
R.C., a teacher with the Peel District School Board (PDSB) since 2001, brought an application for judicial review after the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) dismissed his claims that the school board had unlawfully retaliated against him. He alleged that the PDSB’s decision not to assign him a 0.1 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) teaching position at Lorne Park Public School, following his report to the Ministry of Labour, constituted an unlawful reprisal under Section 50 of the OHSA.
The court’s ruling upheld the decisions of the OLRB, which had previously found that the school board’s actions were based solely on R.C.’s inability to perform the essential duties of the position due to his medical condition, and not as a form of reprisal for his complaints.
Background
The dispute with the PDSB dates back to May 2022, when he filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour after the school board allegedly failed to provide him with anti-fatigue mats, a requested accommodation due to his medical condition. Later that year, R.C. applied to the OLRB, claiming that the school board’s refusal to assign him the 0.1 FTE position at Lorne Park was an act of retaliation for his attempts to enforce his rights under the OHSA.
According to court documents, R.C. initially secured a 0.9 FTE position for the 2022-2023 school year, with placements at both Lorne Park Public School and Tecumseh Public School. However, the PDSB later informed him that it could not accommodate his medical restrictions in the Lorne Park position, which involved supervising children’s outdoor play — a duty the board deemed incompatible with his physical limitations. Instead, the school board offered him an additional 0.1 FTE position at Tecumseh, bringing his total FTE to 0.9, as he had initially requested.
R.C., however, argued that he was entitled to a full 1.0 FTE assignment and that the elimination of the Lorne Park position constituted an unlawful reprisal. Despite the PDSB’s reassurances that the decision was based solely on R.C.’s functional limitations and not on his Ministry of Labour complaint, he continued to pursue the matter, eventually leading to the application for judicial review.
OLRB’s ruling
The OLRB dismissed R.C.’s applications in May 2023, stating that the evidence presented did not support his claims of unlawful reprisal. The board found that the PDSB’s decision not to assign R.C. the Lorne Park position was based entirely on its assessment of his medical restrictions and the safety concerns associated with the role. The board concluded that the dispute was fundamentally about workplace accommodation, an issue that does not fall under the scope of Section 50 of the OHSA.
The OLRB further rejected his request for reconsideration in January 2024, noting that his arguments largely rehashed the same issues that had already been addressed in the initial decision. The board also found no merit in R.C.’s allegations of witness tampering and perjury, which he claimed had influenced the outcome of the hearing.
Court’s decision
In reviewing the OLRB’s decisions, the Superior Court applied the reasonableness standard, affirming that the board’s conclusions were supported by the evidence and consistent with applicable legal principles. The court emphasized that the OLRB had afforded R.C. procedural fairness throughout the proceedings, including providing him with the opportunity to present evidence and make submissions despite his lack of legal representation.
The court also dismissed R.C.’s preliminary motions, which included a request for adjournment and a motion to disqualify the school board’s counsel. The court noted that his motions were part of a broader pattern of legal actions against the PDSB and other entities associated with his employment, many of which had been previously dismissed by various tribunals.
In its ruling, the court concluded that the OLRB had appropriately determined that the PDSB’s actions were based on legitimate safety concerns and his inability to perform the essential duties of the Lorne Park position. The court found no evidence to support R.C.’s claims of reprisal, procedural unfairness, or errors in the OLRB’s application of the law.
As a result, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and awarded costs to the Peel District School Board, fixed at $1,000.
For more information, see Currie v. Peel District School Board, 2024 ONSC 4354 (CanLII).
