Amy Lynn Block

The plaintiff brought an action against the regulatory college seeking declarations and orders regarding the college's alleged failure to investigate the integrity of a third-party examining board's written examinations.

The defendant requested the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it was a collateral attack attempting to re-litigate the plaintiff's previously unsuccessful challenges to his examination results.

The action was dismissed.

The Law Society of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Law Society Tribunal finding that the applicant, who had a history of child sexual abuse, was of good character and could be licensed to practice law with a condition that he not be alone with minors.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the overarching public interest and public trust in the legal profession.

The Court also found the licensing condition internally inconsistent with a finding of good character.

The matter was remitted to the Hearing Division for a fresh assessment.

Additionally, the Court granted the applicant's motion for an anonymization and non-publication order to protect the identity of his daughter, a victim of his past abuse.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report and the subsequent municipal council decision suspending her salary for 90 days.

The Integrity Commissioner found the applicant breached sections 10 and 15 of the Code of Conduct through social media posts following a defeated motion regarding flag-raising.

The Divisional Court held that while the finding of a breach of section 15 (discreditable conduct) was reasonable, the interpretation of section 10 (improper use of influence) to prohibit continued advocacy after a council decision or advocacy on matters outside council's purview was unreasonable.

The report and council decision were quashed and remitted for reconsideration of the penalty.

The applicant career college sought judicial review of a decision by Accreditation Canada to revoke the accreditation of its Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program, and the Superintendent's subsequent decision to revoke the program's approval.

Accreditation Canada brought a motion to stay the judicial review proceedings under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in the accreditation contract.

The Divisional Court found that while the accreditation decision was an exercise of statutory authority with sufficient public character to be subject to judicial review, the technical requirements for a mandatory stay in favour of arbitration were met.

The court held that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and that the subject matter was capable of being arbitrated.

The motion to stay the judicial review was granted.

The applicant career college brought a motion for a stay of the Superintendent's decision to revoke approval of its diagnostic medical sonography program pending a judicial review application.

The revocation followed the loss of the program's accreditation status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable harm, such as financial inability to pay required student refunds.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay to allow students to receive refunds and pursue education elsewhere, rather than remaining trapped in an unaccredited program.

The Law Society of Ontario sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal, which had set aside a Hearing Division decision denying the respondent's application for licensing.

The respondent, a former lawyer whose licence was revoked following misappropriation and criminal fraud convictions, applied for reinstatement but the Hearing Division found he failed to prove good character.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Appeal Division's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply the appellate standard of review, impermissibly reweighed evidence, and mischaracterized the Hearing Division's findings.

The Hearing Division's decision denying the licence was restored.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, brought a motion to exclude specified material from the record of proceedings filed by the respondents in her underlying application for judicial review.

The judicial review application challenged the Integrity Commissioner's finding that the applicant breached the municipality's code of conduct and the municipal council's subsequent decision to suspend her pay for 90 days.

The applicant argued the Integrity Commissioner did not exercise a statutory power of decision and that the material was irrelevant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Integrity Commissioner did exercise a statutory power of decision and that the targeted material was relevant to the procedural fairness and bias issues raised by the applicant herself.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the respondent school board's decision to sanction her for breaching its Code of Conduct.

The applicant had made comments about other trustees that were investigated and found to be harassing and discriminatory.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the board's decision, finding a breach of procedural fairness.

The board failed to follow its own mandatory procedures for Code of Conduct complaints, including time limits and informal resolution steps, and failed to make the statutorily required finding that a breach had occurred before imposing sanctions.

The appellant, a licensed chiropodist, appealed from misconduct findings and a $70,000 costs award made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropodists of Ontario.

The Committee found that the appellant failed to comply with a prior suspension order by continuing to benefit financially from his practice, failing to update his website to reflect his suspended status, and engaging in regulated activities such as sterilizing medical instruments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's liability findings and no error in principle in the costs award.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding he engaged in professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The Tribunal found the appellant defrauded OHIP by billing for thousands of tests he did not provide, received kickbacks for referring patients to a cardiac clinic, and conducted medically unnecessary tests.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in admitting evidence obtained during a search of his clinic, relying on the College's expert, and failing to assist him as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings or factual findings, and upheld the license revocation as a fit penalty for intentional billing fraud.

Dr. Kustka, a family physician, and several of her patients brought applications for judicial review challenging the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to investigate her COVID-19 practices, including prescribing ivermectin and providing mask exemptions.

The patients challenged the College's ability to access their medical records, arguing it violated their Charter rights.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' applications for lack of public and private interest standing.

The Court dismissed the physician's applications as premature, noting that challenges to the appointment of investigators should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also found the College's interim restrictions and investigation decisions were reasonable.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to maintain the standard of practice by treating cancer patients with unproven complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, failing to obtain informed consent, and improperly billing OHIP for palliative care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, no procedural unfairness, and that the Tribunal's factual findings were well-supported by the evidence.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion for a sealing order and the continuation of a non-publication order regarding exhibits containing personal health information of patients in an appeal from the discipline tribunal.

The self-represented appellant opposed the motion, arguing that redactions would suffice.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court found that court openness posed a serious risk to the important public interest of protecting patient confidentiality.

The court granted the motion, concluding that the proposed order was necessary and its benefits outweighed the negative effects on the open court principle.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.

This appeal concerns the application of a non-publication order under section 486.5(9) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario analyzed the Dagenais/Mentuck/Sherman Estate test for discretionary publication bans, balancing privacy interests against the open court principle.

The court confirmed that the mandatory publication ban under section 486.5(9) applies to information related to the application for the ban itself, and amended the lower court's order to explicitly include this mandatory ban.

The appellant physician appealed a finding of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty (a reprimand and three-month suspension) imposed by the Discipline Committee.

The misconduct was based on criminal findings of guilt for domestic violence offences for which the appellant received an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the provincial legislation allowing discipline based on a criminal finding of guilt was unconstitutional on division of powers grounds because it conflicted with the federal Criminal Records Act provisions regarding discharges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no operational conflict or frustration of purpose between the statutes.

The Court also upheld the admission of the criminal records, the finding that domestic violence is relevant to a physician's suitability to practise, the penalty imposed, and the Committee's jurisdiction to award costs for preliminary motions.

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the Discipline Committee's misconduct and penalty decisions.

The moving party argued that his delay was due to financial strain, lack of legal knowledge, and ineffective assistance from his non-lawyer agent at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had not formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time, failed to adequately explain the lengthy delay, and did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal had merit.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by a physician whose licence was revoked.

The physician sought to challenge the Discipline Committee's revocation decisions and an earlier interim suspension by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the physician had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory right of appeal for the revocation decisions.

The court also dismissed the challenge to the interim suspension due to excessive delay of over two years and because the issue was moot following the licence revocation.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included a guilty plea related to OHIP billing, clinical and record-keeping deficiencies, and misleading the College regarding a vaccine administration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was irremediable given his extensive 18-year disciplinary history.

The court held that the penalty of revocation was proportionate and not clearly unfit.

The applicant sought a full panel review of a case management order.

The court previously raised concerns that the motion was moot because the respondent had already conducted the investigation the applicant originally sought to compel.

The court invoked Rule 2.1.02 and directed the applicant to file submissions explaining why the motion should proceed.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and prohibited the applicant from bringing further motions without leave.