Andrea Gonsalves

The accused, a Taekwondo coach charged with sexual assault, applied for the production of interview recordings and notes held by the CBC involving one of the complainants.

The court determined that the common law O'Connor regime applied rather than the Criminal Code s. 278.1 regime, as the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in statements made for a television documentary.

Balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the media's freedom of the press under the Vice Media framework, the court ordered the CBC to produce limited, highly relevant excerpts of the interviews and notes.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties sought full indemnity costs of $141,573.04.

The court departed from the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs, finding the action lacked the hallmarks of a SLAPP, the plaintiff had substantial merit to her claim, and the moving parties had unnecessarily complicated the proceeding by initially pursuing summary judgment.

The court awarded the moving parties partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,603.21, matching the plaintiff's own partial indemnity costs calculation.

The Discipline Committee considered whether a member committed professional misconduct by failing for years to disclose a Florida health-care-fraud conviction, a foreign licence revocation, and an Ontario impaired driving conviction in annual registration renewals.

The panel held that the admitted misconduct breached multiple reporting, honesty, record-keeping, and professionalism provisions under the governing statute, regulations, and standards of practice.

Applying disciplinary penalty principles centred on public protection, public confidence, and general deterrence, the panel revoked the member’s certificate, imposed a three-year bar on reapplication, directed publication with identifying information, and ordered an oral reprimand.

The panel also ordered costs of $20,000 payable within three years.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation action concerning publications about an illegal cannabis dispensary chain and its alleged connections to the plaintiff.

The court found the expression related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiff established substantial merit for some defamatory statements, the defendants successfully demonstrated a valid defence of responsible communication.

The court found the defendants' verification efforts diligent and the inclusion of statements justifiable.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

In this professional discipline penalty decision, the panel imposed a substantial sanction after prior findings that the member deliberately disclosed and promoted access to confidential child-protection-related information belonging to numerous families.

The panel held that penalty had to be grounded in public protection, specific and general deterrence, and remediation, and rejected submissions that no order should issue because the member viewed herself as a whistleblower or had been acquitted in related criminal and Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

The order included a reprimand, a six-month suspension with one month conditionally remittable, educational and regulatory conditions, employer-notification or supervision requirements, publication, and costs.

The panel also held that the governing statute required it to make a penalty order once professional misconduct had been found.

The plaintiff and defendants were neighbours involved in a bitter dispute over a property line, a fence, and alleged defamation.

After most claims were resolved, abandoned, or rendered moot by the sale of both properties, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for $1,412.50 representing the cost of removing and replacing a portion of the fence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the local bylaw did not entitle the plaintiff to unilaterally hire a contractor and seek reimbursement.

As the plaintiff had abandoned the majority of her claims, the court dismissed the action entirely and awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $31,812.52.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that a social work member committed professional misconduct by allowing a therapeutic relationship with a vulnerable client to become personal and sexual, exchanging intimate messages and photographs, concealing the relationship, and abruptly ending contact.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached multiple standards in the Handbook, constituted sexual abuse within subsection 43(4) of the governing statute, and was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty as within the acceptable range and consistent with public protection, deterrence, and maintenance of professional standards.

The member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was revoked, she was barred from reapplying for five years, publication was ordered, and costs of $1,000 were imposed.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted altering a patient record to change the treatment date, submitting a false insurance claim, and providing misleading information to an insurer.

The panel found professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the applicable professional misconduct regulation, concluding the conduct was dishonest and reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, holding that it fell within the appropriate range and served public protection, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The member received a reprimand, a two-month suspension, remedial ethics education, practice monitoring conditions, and a $3000 costs order.

In a class action for secondary market misrepresentation, the court approved a $1.275 million settlement, the proposed distribution plan, class counsel's fees of $357,000 plus disbursements, and an honorarium of $15,000 for the representative plaintiff.

The settlement was deemed fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the high risks and complexities of the litigation and the limited recovery range due to a CCAA order.

The court emphasized the need for exceptional contribution to justify a representative plaintiff's honorarium, which was found to be present in this case.

Professional discipline decision concerning a social worker who admitted professional misconduct arising from couples counselling in which she failed to adequately screen for, recognize, and respond to signs of intimate partner abuse.

The panel found that the member failed to make necessary inquiries, assess power dynamics, use appropriate screening tools, ensure a safety plan, and remain current in practice standards and supervision obligations.

The panel also found the conduct dishonourable and unprofessional, particularly given a prior caution on similar issues.

A joint penalty submission was accepted imposing a reprimand, a one-month suspension suspended for two years subject to compliance, remedial education and supervision terms, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

The plaintiff, Alex M. Bodnarchuk, brought a consent motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes and to obtain leave to proceed with a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Ontario Securities Act against Guestlogix Inc., Brett Proud, and Patrick Leung.

The action alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding credit facilities and financial covenants.

The parties reached a settlement of $1,275,000.

The court granted leave, finding the action was brought in good faith and had a reasonable possibility of success for settlement purposes.

The court also certified the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes, finding all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The order approved the settlement notices and procedures for opt-outs and objections, and set a date for the settlement approval hearing.

Professional discipline decision arising from a member's admissions that she performed or billed for fixed prosthodontic treatment despite an undertaking and remediation order restricting that work, and that she used a business name inconsistent with the register.

The panel held that the agreed facts substantiated all allegations of professional misconduct on a balance of probabilities and emphasized the member's disregard for patient protection and regulatory obligations.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction consisting of a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, extensive practice conditions, mentoring, monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

The plaintiffs filed affidavits containing confidential information about a minor child (Student Q) and her family, breaching a prior confidentiality order (Penny Order).

The defendants and Student Q's family successfully moved to have these affidavits removed/redacted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible and deserving of reprimand, rejecting their arguments of inadvertence and access to justice without evidence of impecuniosity.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to Student Q's family, and reduced costs to the defendants, totaling $41,633.44, payable by the plaintiffs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the tribunal found the member guilty of professional misconduct for repeatedly accessing sealed adoption records without authorization, copying or noting their contents, and disclosing the information to an adoptee with whom she was in a personal relationship.

The tribunal held that pre-registration conduct could ground discipline where it bore on current suitability to practise and found the member's confidentiality breach, dishonesty during the employer investigation, and resulting harm to affected persons demonstrated disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty despite expressing concern that revocation might otherwise have been warranted.

It imposed an oral reprimand, a 16-month suspension with partial remission conditional on compliance, remediation terms, publication, and $13,000 in costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) not to establish a panel of scientists to review the continued registration of glyphosate products.

The PMRA concluded the applicants' Notice of Objection did not raise scientifically founded doubt about the validity of the evaluations.

The Federal Court found the PMRA's decision reasonable, holding that the applicants failed to present controlled, peer-reviewed studies contradicting the PMRA's conclusions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

In a defamation action arising from a book alleging the plaintiff engaged in workplace sexual harassment, the defendants brought a motion to anonymize the non-party complainant who made the allegations.

The complainant was summoned as a witness for an upcoming Anti-SLAPP motion and feared reputational harm and privacy violations if identified.

Applying the Sierra Club test, the court granted the motion, finding that the complainant's privacy interests were high and the salutary effects of the order outweighed any deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board imposing a $155,000 administrative penalty for contraventions of the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 related to the marketing of energy contracts.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the Board lost jurisdiction because the penalty was imposed outside the two-year limitation period in s. 112.5(2) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the new limitation period issue, finding it would benefit from the specialized tribunal's interpretation and required factual findings.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's arguments that the Board misapprehended evidence and improperly found systemic training deficiencies, concluding there were no errors of law or jurisdiction.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel dismissed the member's motion to close the hearing, holding that the evidence did not establish a compelling basis under the governing statute or the SPPA to overcome the presumption of public access.

The member admitted allegations arising from inappropriate personal disclosures, boundary violations, repeated contact with a vulnerable client outside sessions and after termination, and disclosure of client information to the client's sister.

The panel found professional misconduct proven and accepted a partial joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a five-month suspension with one month conditionally remittable, mandatory boundaries and ethics training, and costs.

On publication, the panel ordered publication with the member's name but directed limited redactions of specific details of the misconduct as a narrower measure addressing the asserted risk of harm.

In this professional discipline decision, the panel found a social worker committed multiple acts of professional misconduct arising from family mediation, parenting coordination, and custody-access assessment work.

The admitted misconduct included acting beyond scope by using DSM-based diagnostic language, making unsubstantiated recommendations about clients and children, verbally abusing clients, prioritizing personal interests, using professional authority to harass or improperly influence clients, and failing to report child protection concerns forthwith under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The panel held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the Professional Misconduct Regulation, the Act, and the College’s standards framework.

It accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, remedial terms and conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the member’s admissions to multiple allegations arising from complex implant treatment, consent failures, disclosure of patient information, deficient records, and breach of a remediation and mentorship program.

The admitted facts included lengthy surgery on an elderly patient, treatment-planning inconsistencies, undocumented changes in implant number and prosthetic materials, inadequate informed consent, unauthorized distribution of patient photographs, and failure to follow a mentor’s recommendations in two implant cases.

The panel found all misconduct allegations proven and accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The sanction imposed a six-month suspension, reprimand, extensive remedial terms and monitoring, and costs of $10,000.