Aaron Dantowitz

The College brought a motion to stay discipline proceedings against the member.

The member's certificate of registration had already been revoked in a prior proceeding involving sexual abuse.

The Discipline Committee granted the stay, finding it was not in the public interest to expend resources on a new hearing when the member was already revoked, with the condition that the stay could be lifted if the member ever applied for a new certificate.

The College brought a motion to stay discipline proceedings against the member, who was alleged to have used unauthorized specialization terms and practiced complementary medicine on animals in contravention of the Veterinarians Act.

The member signed an Undertaking and Surrender Agreement, agreeing to surrender his Certificate of Registration, never practice or use restricted titles in Canada again, and pay $750 in costs.

The Discipline Committee found that granting the stay was in the public interest, as the public is protected by the terms of the Agreement and the transparency of the process.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for sexually abusing a patient, the Discipline Committee held a penalty and costs hearing.

The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of the member's certificate of registration and a public reprimand.

Additionally, the Committee ordered the member to post $16,060 in security to reimburse the College for the patient's therapy and counselling.

The member was also ordered to pay $105,000 in costs to the College, representing approximately 65% of the College's total hearing costs.

The Law Society of Upper Canada sought an injunction under the Law Society Act to prohibit a disbarred lawyer from providing legal services.

The Law Society alleged the respondent had violated the Act on at least two occasions, relying on client and investigator affidavits.

The respondent denied the allegations, presenting employee affidavits stating a licensed lawyer handled the client's file.

The court found the Law Society did not meet its burden of proof to establish a violation of the Act on a balance of probabilities, dismissing the application.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists dismissing his motion to quash disciplinary charges.

The charges arose from a complaint that the College failed to process according to the mandatory statutory requirements under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Instead of following the complaint process, the College invited the complainant to withdraw her complaint in favour of a Registrar's investigation under s. 75(1)(a).

The Divisional Court held that the College's failure to strictly comply with the statutory complaint procedures deprived it of jurisdiction to refer the matter to discipline.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Panel's decision was quashed, and the College was prohibited from prosecuting the charges.

The member was previously found to have committed professional misconduct by performing unauthorized hirudotherapy (leech therapy), using unauthorized titles, and posting prohibited testimonials.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought a 12-month suspension and $7,500 in costs, while the self-represented member sought a reprimand only, citing financial hardship and her immediate cessation of the prohibited acts.

The Discipline Committee ordered a 9-month suspension (with 3 months remittable upon completion of an ethics program and a reflection report), a public reprimand, and a practice reassessment.

The Committee also ordered the member to pay $5,000 in costs, payable in installments to accommodate her financial circumstances.

The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The Member closed her practice without notifying patients, failed to refund prepaid treatment fees, and could not be reached by the College.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct by inappropriately discontinuing services, breaching an agreement with a patient, failing to give notice of practice closure, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered a public reprimand, a three-month suspension upon any reinstatement, a condition to complete an ethics course, and $3,500 in costs.

The appellant pharmacist challenged the constitutional validity of the mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code after engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a patient.

He argued the provisions intruded into federal criminal law jurisdiction by regulating morality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions are in pith and substance the regulation of health care professionals under provincial jurisdiction, aimed at protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the professional-patient relationship.

The applicant, a teacher whose employment was terminated after unsatisfactory performance evaluations, sought judicial review of several decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The HRTO had dismissed his numerous complaints against his former employer, his union, various legal counsel, and several administrative bodies, finding no evidence of discrimination based on race or colour.

The HRTO also declared him a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the HRTO's decisions, noting that the applicant failed to establish any link between his dismissal or the subsequent administrative decisions and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

A pharmacist challenged the constitutionality of mandatory licence revocation provisions under the Health Professions Procedural Code after pleading guilty to sexual abuse of a patient based on a consensual sexual relationship.

The applicant argued the provisions were ultra vires the province because, in pith and substance, they regulated sexual morality and therefore fell within Parliament’s criminal law power.

The Superior Court held that the dominant purpose of the provisions was the protection of the public through the regulation of professional standards governing health care practitioners.

The provisions were therefore within the province’s jurisdiction over property and civil rights under s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court also held the Attorney General was estopped from challenging the court’s jurisdiction because the issue had already been determined in earlier proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment via email, citing bronchitis, but provided no medical documentation and failed to call into the hearing.

Given the applicant's history of delaying the proceeding and failure to participate, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The appellant appealed her conviction on Highway Traffic Act charges.

Due to a misunderstanding with her paralegal, neither attended her trial, which proceeded ex parte.

A subsequent appeal hearing also proceeded in her absence, resulting in a resolution she claimed she did not consent to.

The Court of Appeal found that the apparent unfairness at trial was not cured by the appeal hearing and ordered a new trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

The self-represented applicant brought three procedural motions within his application for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

First, he sought to strike the respondents' materials for late filing; the court dismissed this, allowing the materials nunc pro tunc as the delay was minimal and caused no prejudice.

Second, he argued the Tribunal's record of proceedings was incomplete; the court agreed and ordered the Tribunal to allow the applicant to select correspondence for a supplementary record, awarding him $150 in costs.

Third, he sought to remove respondent counsel for an alleged conflict of interest; the court dismissed this as the Tribunal had already decided the issue.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee dismissing a motion to reconsider its order suspending the mandatory revocation of the respondent pharmacist's certificate of registration for sexual abuse.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction to suspend a mandatory revocation under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court held that the Committee's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable.

The Court found that the mandatory revocation provision did not preclude the Committee from exercising its general power to suspend penalty orders.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Attorney General moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a motion judge's order refusing to consolidate a pharmacist's constitutional challenge in the Superior Court with his professional misconduct appeal in the Divisional Court.

The Attorney General sought to have the consolidated proceeding stayed and the constitutional issue remitted to the College's Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law and no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that exceptional circumstances justified allowing the constitutional challenge to proceed in the Superior Court, particularly given the Discipline Committee's inability to grant a general declaration of invalidity.

The appellant, Inco Limited, appealed a costs order awarding it $1,766,000 following its successful defence of a class action at the Court of Appeal.

Inco argued it was entitled to over $5.3 million and that the trial judge erred by reducing its legal fees and applying a 50 per cent discount under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's determination that the environmental tort class action raised novel points of law and involved matters of public interest.

The court upheld the trial judge's methodical and reasonable costs analysis.

The Attorney General brought a motion to consolidate a Superior Court constitutional application and a Divisional Court appeal regarding the mandatory revocation of a pharmacist's license for professional misconduct.

The Attorney General also sought to remit the constitutional challenge to the Discipline Committee.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the constitutional application at first instance.

The court also declined to remit the matter to the Discipline Committee, holding that exceptional circumstances justified early judicial intervention given the Committee's lack of expertise and inability to issue a general declaration of invalidity.

Following a successful motion in which the action against one defendant was dismissed for lack of a real and substantial connection with Ontario, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $25,000, arguing the motion involved significant complexity, a substantial damages claim, and an extensive evidentiary record.

The plaintiffs contended the cross-examination conducted was proper and that a lower costs award was reasonable.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed a fair and reasonable amount rather than awarding actual costs incurred.

Partial indemnity costs of $21,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were awarded to the successful defendant.

The defendant, a resident and chief architect of the Ministry of Works and Engineering of Bermuda, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' conspiracy action against him on the grounds of state immunity and lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The plaintiffs, former Bermudian government officials, alleged the defendant conspired with an Ontario architect to plant altered cheques in government files to falsely implicate them in a kickback scheme.

The court found the defendant was not immune from suit due to the commercial activity exception under the State Immunity Act.

However, the court dismissed the action against the moving defendant, concluding that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as the plaintiffs failed to establish a real and substantial connection to the province.

The applicant, a lawyer, filed a human rights application alleging that the Law Society of Upper Canada discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin during its investigation of a client complaint.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant made bald assertions of discrimination and failed to point to any evidence that could establish differential treatment or a link between the respondent's actions and the protected grounds.

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