Alexander Patrick Boissonneau-Lehner

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the Member for holding herself out as a Nurse Practitioner without authorization and for failing to comply with a previous order to complete a remediation program.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, noting her conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, taking into account the Member's undertaking to permanently resign from the profession.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a stated case to the Divisional Court to determine whether the Durham Regional Police Service had a lawful excuse for refusing to produce certain emails responsive to a summons.

The DRPS claimed the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

After reviewing the emails, the court found they involved communications between senior members of the DRPS and their counsel related to the provision of legal advice.

The court held the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege and the DRPS was justified in withholding them.

The Durham Regional Police Service (Applicant) sought to prohibit the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (Commission) from disclosing two workplace investigation reports (Shearer Reports), claiming they were privileged.

The Commission, along with the Durham Regional Police Service Association (Intervenor), opposed these restrictions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Shearer Report 1 was not privileged, and while Shearer Report 2's privilege was uncertain (as it was not produced for review), any privilege over either report had been waived or lost due to prior disclosures.

The court ordered the reports to be produced to the Commission without restriction, emphasizing the public interest in disclosure to protect employees from harassment and a toxic workplace, and noting the Commission's statutory obligations of confidentiality.

The applicant delivered a subpoena seeking documents from the respondent.

The respondent objected to producing certain documents, claiming lawyer-client privilege.

The applicant brought an application by way of stated case under s. 33 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009 to determine whether the documents are producible or privileged.

The court issued procedural directions, including a schedule for evidence, cross-examinations, and factums, and directed that the matter be heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, considering the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions and recent conflicting Court of Appeal guidance on costs guidelines.

The court awarded the Canadian Nurses Association Defendants $250,000.00 on a full indemnity basis and the Together News Inc. Defendants $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding these amounts fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and the parties' expectations prior to new appellate guidance.

The applicant, a chiropractor previously disciplined for professional misconduct, sought an interim stay of an amended College bylaw that disqualified him from running in an upcoming Council election.

The College had recently amended the bylaw to extend the disqualification period for professional misconduct from three to six years, making it effective immediately.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, using the elevated 'strong likelihood of success' standard because the stay would effectively determine the election outcome.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that the bylaw would be found unreasonable, retrospective, or passed in bad faith on judicial review.

The defendant, Rick Malatesta, brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff Lisa Taylor's Statement of Claim and Reply, arguing that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action against him personally, particularly for wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff conceded the wrongful dismissal claim against Malatesta but sought to maintain a claim for intentional infliction of mental distress and punitive damages against him, and requested leave to amend her pleadings to clarify these claims.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the intentional infliction of mental distress claim, finding that the proposed amended claim adequately pleaded the necessary elements for this tort against Malatesta personally, and that corporate employees can be held personally liable for tortious conduct even if acting in the course of their duties.

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to clarify that the wrongful dismissal claim was against Chair Source only, and the intentional infliction of mental distress claim was against Mr. Malatesta only, with additional particulars.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, Lisa Taylor, due to the defendant's significant delay in bringing the motion and unreasonable conduct regarding settlement offers.

The plaintiffs, a group of nurses and their organization who organized protests against COVID-19 mandates outside hospitals, sued the defendants for defamation over statements and articles criticizing their actions.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the plaintiffs' claim had substantial merit, they failed to show that the harm they suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions on matters of public health.

The action was dismissed.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board and Christopher Delaney appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's (HRTO) decisions unreasonable.

The HRTO had ruled that a settlement agreement for a second human rights application also settled a prior, undecided first application by Joseph Briggs, and subsequently cancelled a favourable decision for Briggs on the first application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court reversed the HRTO, finding its interpretation of the settlement unreasonable and deciding the matter itself rather than remitting it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable due to its narrow interpretation of the factual matrix and exclusion of relevant evidence (Form 25).

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the Divisional Court's discretion to decide the matter rather than remitting it, citing the inordinate delay and the binary nature of the issue.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the settlement did not cover the first application.

Two registered nurses sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had directed the nurses to be cautioned and complete remedial education after they made public statements and social media posts spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and public health measures while identifying themselves as nurses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the ICRC reasonably balanced the nurses' Charter right to freedom of expression with the College's statutory mandate to protect the public interest.

The Court held that the remedial actions were proportionate and that the ICRC did not exceed its jurisdiction as a screening committee.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a judgment dismissing his claims for malicious prosecution, nervous shock, false imprisonment, negligence, and other collateral claims, and an extension of time to appeal that judgment.

He also sought leave to appeal a subsequent costs order of $75,000 and leave to file fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time, no explanation for the delay, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit, which would prejudice the responding parties.

The court also found no error in principle in the trial judge's costs award, noting its reasonableness given the trial length, the moving party's conduct, and unfounded allegations.

The defendants were successful at trial in defending against the plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, negligence, and nervous shock.

The defendants sought costs of $82,306.68 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff argued that no costs should be payable.

The court found that the defendants' offer to settle and the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct, which needlessly extended the proceedings, justified an enhanced costs award.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that his self-represented status or financial circumstances warranted a reduction in costs.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs fixed at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former romantic partner and her current partner for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, negligence, and nervous shock following his arrest for forcible confinement.

The arrest stemmed from a domestic incident where the plaintiff refused to return the defendant's keys and engaged in controlling behaviour.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the defendant had reasonable and probable grounds to contact the police out of concern for her safety, and that she did not initiate the prosecution or act with malice.

The plaintiff's ancillary claims for money and property were also dismissed for lack of evidence.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim and Reply to Defence and Counterclaim, alleging they were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, irrelevant, and/or an abuse of process, and sought removal of the plaintiff's affidavit of documents.

The court granted the motion in part, striking numerous paragraphs and entire claims (e.g., deceit, Family Law Act claims, Charter violations, and parts of nervous shock and libel claims) without leave to amend for lacking legal basis or being scandalous/frivolous.

Other claims (e.g., malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, conspiracy, and parts of negligence/libel/nervous shock) were allowed to stand or were struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiff's affidavit of documents was ordered removed.