Andrew B. Matheson

The court determined the costs for seven different motions in a complex commercial action involving Mareva injunctions and proprietary claims.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful parties on each motion, balancing divided success and the reasonableness of the amounts claimed.

In total, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay net costs to various defendants, while some defendants were ordered to pay costs to the plaintiffs for motions where the plaintiffs were successful.

The Divisional Court remitted a matter back to the Superior Court to determine whether disclosing the identities of third-party funders paying the living expenses of the Aljabri defendants posed a risk to their personal safety.

The defendants adduced unchallenged evidence that the Saudi regime had previously targeted the family and associates of the lead defendant following a 2017 palace coup.

The court found a material risk that disclosure to the plaintiffs could lead to the information reaching the Saudi government, jeopardizing the funders' safety.

The court ordered that the identities remain disclosed on a counsels' eyes only basis and not be provided to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendant waived litigation privilege over a 'Proffer' document provided to the Attorney General of Canada for national security vetting under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that while the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, the defendant's stated intention of using it to promote trial efficiency constituted a waiver of privilege vis-à-vis the trial judge.

The court ordered the unredacted Proffer to be provided to the judge and established a comprehensive trial protocol, including the appointment of amicus curiae and advance vetting of sensitive evidence, to balance national security concerns with trial fairness.

The appellant, a teacher, was found to have committed professional misconduct and sexual abuse by sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a former student.

Under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, this finding resulted in the mandatory revocation of his teaching certificate.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the mandatory revocation provisions unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that the Discipline Panel erred in its evidentiary rulings and by failing to conduct a Doré analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Panel's finding that the infringement of the appellant's freedom of expression was justified under s. 1 of the Charter to protect vulnerable students from sexual abuse.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing after finding the member engaged in professional misconduct by having an inappropriate relationship and sexual intercourse with a vulnerable student, and failing to report the student's mental health issues.

The College sought revocation, while the member sought a suspension, citing her religious conversion and remorse.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and a written reprimand, emphasizing the egregious nature of the conduct, the profound impact on the student, and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The Committee confirmed the member could apply for reinstatement after one year, as the conduct pre-dated the mandatory revocation provisions for sexual abuse.

The decision addresses a motion by Saad Aljabri, Mohammed Aljabri, and various corporate defendants to vary Mareva orders freezing their worldwide assets, seeking the release of frozen funds to pay legal fees.

The court grants the motion for all moving parties except Dreams International Advisory Services Ltd., finding that the Mareva Defendants have shown they lack access to other assets or reliable third-party funding, and that a variation is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The court dismisses the motion by Dreams, finding insufficient evidence that it lacks access to other funds.

The decision reviews the legal test for varying Mareva orders and applies a balancing of interests, including the merits of the case, the complexity of the litigation, and the conduct of the parties.

The Member, a teacher whose certificate was mandatorily revoked after being found to have sexually abused a student by making remarks of a sexual nature, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory revocation provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The Member argued the provisions violated his right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

The Discipline Committee admitted expert evidence from both parties.

Applying the Irwin Toy and Oakes tests, the Committee found that while the mandatory revocation provisions do infringe on the Member's freedom of expression, the infringement is demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Committee held that protecting vulnerable students from the harmful effects of sexual abuse is a pressing and substantial objective, and that a bright-line rule of mandatory revocation is rationally connected and proportionate to that goal.

The constitutional motion was dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member, who was an educational assistant at the time of the alleged misconduct.

The Member admitted to engaging in an inappropriate personal relationship with a vulnerable student, which included giving him her personal phone number, lending him $3,000 to pay a gambling debt, and having sexual intercourse with him at her home.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member's conduct constituted physical and emotional abuse of a student, and was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional under the regulations in force in 2004.

The Committee held that although the Member was not a registered teacher at the time, her conduct as an educator breached professional boundaries and constituted professional misconduct.

The respondents entered into a settlement agreement with Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding allegations of unregistered trading, illegal distribution, and making misleading statements in connection with the promotion and sale of cryptocurrency tokens (Axia Coin).

The respondents admitted to breaching multiple provisions of the Securities Act and agreed to pay administrative penalties, disgorgement, and costs, as well as to permanent market bans.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement agreement, finding it to be in the public interest and within a range of reasonable outcomes.

In a discipline proceeding against a teacher found to have engaged in sexual abuse, the member brought a constitutional motion challenging the mandatory revocation provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

Prior to hearing the motion, the parties sought a ruling on the admissibility of two expert reports.

The Discipline Committee ruled that the expert reports of Dr. Anthony Doob, regarding general deterrence and mandatory minimum sentences, and Dr. Mary Louise Arnold, regarding the harms of sexual abuse in teacher-student interactions, were both admissible.

Written reasons were to follow.

The Discipline Committee previously found that the member engaged in professional misconduct, including the sexual abuse of a student.

At the penalty hearing, the Committee applied the mandatory penalty provisions under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

The Committee ordered that the member receive an oral reprimand and directed the Registrar to immediately revoke the member's certificate of qualification and registration.

The panel remained seized to hear a constitutional challenge to the mandatory penalty provisions at a later date.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included consuming alcohol on a field trip, making inappropriate comments about rape, miscarriage, and vaginal tearing to a Grade 8 class, and sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a former student.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse.

The Committee also found that the Facebook messages were of a sexual nature, constituting sexual abuse of a student under the Act.

An interim order suspending the member's certificate was issued pending the penalty phase.

Dr. Musson faced four counts of sexual assault and sexual touching of a person under 16.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of his Section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found the total delay of 683 days exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 547.5 days.

The court found no defence-caused delay.

While an unexpected Crown leave of absence (11 days) was an exceptional circumstance, the significant delay (175 days) caused by the Crown's unlawful disclosure of youth records was not considered exceptional, as it was foreseeable and unavoidable, and the Crown did not act proactively to remedy it.

Consequently, the court found the delay unreasonable and stayed all four counts against Dr. Musson.

The member, facing discipline proceedings for alleged sexual abuse of a student, brought a motion for the production of third-party records, including the student's attendance records from the school board.

Applying the second stage of the O'Connor test, the Discipline Committee panel found that the attendance records were relevant to the member's ability to make full answer and defence regarding the dates of the alleged inappropriate conduct.

The panel ordered the production of the attendance records, subject to redactions of the specific reasons for the student's absences to protect privacy interests.

The Member, a teacher facing allegations of professional misconduct including sexual abuse of a student, brought a motion for the production of third-party records.

The Member sought the complainant's mental health records and portions of his Ontario Student Record (OSR), including transcripts, attendance records, and Individualized Education Plans.

The Discipline Committee applied the Mills test to the mental health records and denied production, finding them not likely relevant and that the complainant's privacy interests outweighed any probative value.

Applying the O'Connor test to the school records, the Committee found that transcripts and IEPs were privileged under the Education Act.

However, the Committee ordered the production of the complainant's attendance records and the dates he had an IEP, as these existed outside the OSR, were not privileged, and were likely relevant to establishing the timeframe of the alleged relationship.

This motion concerned an application by the accused, Robert Scott Musson, under section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for access to and production of two sets of youth records: one related to an alleged "stranger assault" in 1997 and another related to a break and enter at Dr. Musson's home in 1998, involving the complainant A.L. and witness L.W. The court dismissed access to the 1997 "stranger assault" records, finding that a police caution constituted an extrajudicial measure under the YCJA, making section 119(4) applicable and precluding access.

For the 1998 break and enter records, the court found that Dr. Musson met the test under section 123 of the YCJA for access, demonstrating a valid and substantial interest and necessity in the interest of justice.

However, due to the nature of the allegations against Dr. Musson (sexual offences), the court ruled that the Mills regime applied, requiring a separate application under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code for actual production of these records, which were ordered to remain under seal.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing for a teacher previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct by yelling at students, making threatening comments, and failing to follow school policies.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension commencing in September, completion of coursework on anger and classroom management, and a medical assessment prior to returning to teaching.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a teacher for alleged professional misconduct, including verbal and emotional abuse of students, inappropriate boundaries, and threatening comments.

The Discipline Committee qualified the school principal as a participant expert and admitted her contemporaneous investigation notes as reliable hearsay.

The Committee found that the member frequently yelled at students, made threatening remarks such as 'I'm going to gun you down individually', and paid inappropriate attention to two students, causing them distress.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession, abusing students verbally and emotionally, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

The Member brought a motion to dismiss professional misconduct proceedings against her on the basis that the Discipline Committee lacked jurisdiction over conduct that occurred before she became a member of the College.

The allegations involved sexual abuse of a student while the Member was employed as an educational assistant, prior to her registration as a teacher.

The Majority of the Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding that the legislation does not explicitly restrict jurisdiction to conduct occurring during membership, and that the College's public protection mandate requires consideration of pre-registration conduct that raises serious concerns about a member's current suitability to practice.

A dissenting member would have granted the motion, interpreting the statutory silence as precluding jurisdiction over pre-registration conduct.

The Member brought a motion to adjourn the discipline hearing for medical reasons.

The College consented to the adjournment but requested conditions for any future adjournment requests, including a requirement for an independent medical evaluation.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment and imposed conditions on future requests, noting the need to prevent undue delay and manage committee resources.

The Committee ordered that if the Member seeks a future adjournment for medical reasons and the College reasonably requests an independent medical evaluation, the Member may consent to it, with any refusal to be considered by a future panel.