3 total
Physician's appeal of discipline committee decision revoking his license for sexual abuse of adolescents dismissed.
The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing an adolescent patient and engaging in disgraceful conduct towards another adolescent boy.
The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.
On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors of fact and held his evidence to an uneven standard of scrutiny.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee properly evaluated the evidence, made reasonable credibility findings, and correctly concluded the conduct amounted to masturbation requiring mandatory revocation.
Successful defendant denied costs due to its insurer's hardball tactics and access to justice concerns.
The plaintiff, an elderly resident, sued the defendant retirement home after a slip and fall on an uneven sidewalk.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was found not liable.
The defendant, represented by in-house counsel for its insurer, sought costs.
The court declined to award costs to the successful defendant, noting the insurer's "hardball" tactics, refusal to negotiate, and the broader social interest of access to justice for modest litigants facing large insurers.
Summary judgment granted dismissing claims against a mother and son where the son caused a collision during a sudden psychotic episode and had taken the mother's vehicle without consent.
The defendants, Lauren Stephen (Son) and Brenda Stephen (Mother), brought separate motions for summary judgment to dismiss claims against them arising from a motor vehicle collision.
The Son, who caused the collision, argued he was not civilly liable due to a mental disorder at the time.
The Mother argued she was not vicariously liable as the Son lacked her consent to possess her vehicle, and denied negligence in her supervision or control of the vehicle keys.
The court granted both motions, finding the Son met the Buckley test for mental illness in negligence, and the Mother was neither vicariously liable nor negligent, as she did not give consent and could not have foreseen the Son's actions.