Andrew B. Matheson

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers held a hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The member was self-represented but did not attend the hearing.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the Committee found that the member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged.

A penalty hearing was to be scheduled at a later date.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of secret commissions and intentional interference with economic relations, and to disqualify the defendants' counsel from acting for a proposed new defendant.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for case management and a timetable.

The court denied the contested amendments without prejudice, finding the plaintiff failed to plead full particulars as required by Rule 25.06(8).

The court also dismissed the motion to disqualify counsel, finding no clear evidence of a conflict of interest.

Case management was denied, but a timetable was ordered.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act to commence an action for secondary market misrepresentation against Pretium Resources Inc. and Robert A. Quartermain.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material facts regarding conflicting expert opinions on the validity of a mineral resource estimate for the Brucejack Project, leading to a significant drop in share price.

The court granted leave, finding that the plaintiff established a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

The court determined that the concerns raised by Strathcona Mineral Services, a respected mining consultant, were material facts that a reasonable investor would consider important, despite Pretium's belief that the data was unreliable.

Furthermore, the court found a reasonable possibility that the defendants would not be able to establish the "no reasonable grounds to believe" branch of their reasonable investigation defense under s. 138.4(6) of the OSA.

The plaintiff, Enbridge Pipelines Inc., sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following a successful motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The defendants, Todd Williams and Wayne Hill, did not submit any costs submissions.

The court considered the factors under subrule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing the principles of indemnity, reasonable expectation of costs, and proportionality.

Given the defendants' failure to dispute the plaintiff's claim, the court found the amount claimed to be reasonable and proportionate.

Costs were awarded severally, with Mr. Williams ordered to pay $18,387.81 and Mr. Hill $7,000.00.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. sought an interim and interlocutory injunction to prevent Todd Williams and Wayne Hill from interfering with its pipeline maintenance work in the Hamilton, Ontario area.

The defendants asserted Aboriginal treaty harvesting rights under the Nanfan Treaty of 1701 as justification for their actions.

The court granted the injunction, finding that Enbridge established a strong prima facie case of trespass and irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored Enbridge.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that a duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal claims was a precondition for granting an injunction sought by a private party, emphasizing that self-help remedies are not condoned.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from using extra-jurisdictional procedures to acquire documents from non-parties, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $75,365.38.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs of $15,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the issue under section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the issue was not legally novel in a way that justified denying costs and noting the plaintiffs' conduct was improper.

The court awarded the defendants their costs as claimed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a high school teacher for professional misconduct, alleging boundary violations with multiple female students and the sexual abuse of one student.

The Discipline Committee found that the member engaged in inappropriate personal relationships with students, including driving them in his personal vehicle and spending time alone with them.

Furthermore, the member engaged in a sexualized email relationship with a student, groomed her for sexual contact, and ultimately had sexual intercourse with her after she graduated.

The Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse, failing to maintain professional standards, and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The member's certificate of qualification and registration was revoked, and a summary of the decision was ordered to be published with his name.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers held an undefended hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct against the Member.

The Committee found that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97 and the Education Act.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, publication of the decision, a $5,000 fine, and $10,839 in costs.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his medical license.

The Committee found he engaged in unwanted touching of hospital employees and coercive sexual activity with a 17-year-old camp counsellor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence and upheld the penalty, finding the revocation was a reasonable outcome given the serious nature of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, and the lack of evidence regarding the risk of future misconduct.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought allegations of professional misconduct against a teacher for inappropriate comments and substandard teaching practices.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for inaccurately recording student grades in the Mark Book system and for making inappropriate comments in front of students, including asking if a student was 'gay' and stating that a student's mother 'grilled' him and was 'animated'.

The Committee dismissed several other allegations, including failing to adequately supervise students, providing an overly-detailed exam review, and leaving an exam on his desk for students to view, citing insufficient evidence or finding that the conduct did not amount to professional misconduct.

A penalty hearing was to be scheduled at a later date.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault, unlawful confinement, and breach of recognizance arising from allegations made by a complainant in a former intimate relationship.

Although the court rejected the argument that the trial verdict was unreasonable, it admitted as fresh evidence the complainant's later trial testimony giving a materially different account of the incident.

Applying the Palmer framework and recantation authorities, the court held that the later sworn evidence had substantial impeachment value on the decisive issue of credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The Member, a former school principal, faced allegations of professional misconduct for misappropriating over $20,000 from a school advisory council account between 2004 and 2009.

The funds, intended for student programs, were improperly used for staff events, unauthorized wages, and other unapproved expenses.

The Member falsified accounting records to conceal the true nature of the payments.

He previously pled guilty to criminal misappropriation of funds and paid restitution.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered an 18-month suspension of his teaching certificate, a formal reprimand, and the completion of a professional ethics course prior to returning to teaching.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who accessed pornographic material on a school laptop and failed to adequately control student access to the device.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct and the parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission, ordering a reprimand and a two-month suspension of the member's certificate.

The Committee declined the College's request to publish the member's name, finding that publication without the name, combined with the suspension and reprimand, sufficiently protected the public interest and served as a deterrent.

The Member, an elementary school teacher and high school coach, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in a sexual relationship with a student.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and directed that the decision be published with the Member's name to serve as a specific and general deterrent.

The applicant pipeline company sought an urgent ex parte interim and interlocutory injunction restraining unknown protesters from trespassing on a valve installation site required for pipeline infrastructure work.

Protesters had occupied the site to oppose the reversal of oil flow in a major pipeline project, delaying scheduled construction and causing economic disruption.

The court accepted that the applicant had proprietary rights through an easement and that trespass ordinarily supports injunctive relief, but emphasized that political protest engages Charter values and that protesters should have an opportunity to be heard.

Balancing property rights, economic harm, and freedom of expression, the court granted a short-term ex parte injunction due to the difficulty of identifying or serving protesters.

The injunction was limited in duration and required the applicant to return to court on notice if it sought continuation of the order.

The Member, a secondary school teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in inappropriate electronic communications of a sexual nature with three students and having physical sexual contact with a fourth student.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate.

Despite the Member's request for anonymity, the Committee ordered the publication of the decision with the Member's name, emphasizing the need for transparency, specific and general deterrence, and the maintenance of public trust.

The plaintiffs moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) on the basis that the defendant corporation was a shell entity with insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award.

The defendant resisted the motion by arguing that its counterclaim substantially overlapped with the main action and that the dispute would likely be stayed in favour of arbitration.

The court held that the counterclaim introduced significant new issues beyond those in the main action, including additional claims for accounting, dividends, and alleged financial misconduct, thereby increasing the plaintiffs’ litigation costs.

Applying the two‑part test for security for costs, the court found good reason to believe the defendant was a shell corporation and that the defendant failed to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption or demonstrate why security should not be ordered.

Security for costs was therefore granted and costs of the motion were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The three accused, former senior executives of Nortel Networks Corporation, were charged with two counts of fraud over $5,000.

The Crown alleged that they deliberately misrepresented Nortel's financial results by manipulating accrued liability balances to meet earnings targets and trigger bonus payments.

The court conducted a detailed review of Nortel's accounting practices, the use of accrued liabilities, and the restatements of its financial results.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately misrepresented the financial results or that the financial statements were materially misstated.

The accused were found not guilty on both counts.

The applicants, minority shareholders of MI Developments Inc. (MID), brought applications under sections 104 and 127 of the Securities Act alleging that MID failed to comply with Multilateral Instrument 61-101 (MI 61-101) by not obtaining minority shareholder approval for a series of related party transactions with Magna Entertainment Corp. (MEC).

The transactions included loans, loan extensions, and debtor-in-possession financing.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the applications, finding that section 104 does not apply to related party transactions.

While the Commission permitted the applications under section 127, it concluded that MID was entitled to rely on the downstream transaction exception and the market capitalization exemption under MI 61-101.

The Commission also found no prima facie case of insider trading in connection with a related trust transaction.

The appellant physicians, who performed cosmetic surgery without formal surgical residency, were investigated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for potential professional misconduct or incompetence.

The College sought to have investigators observe their surgical practices, which the appellants refused, arguing the governing legislation did not authorize compelled observation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the power to 'inquire into and examine the practice' under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code encompasses the direct observation of a member's practice, particularly to protect the public interest.