Andrew Steven Faith

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a Nurse Practitioner for failing to maintain the boundaries of the therapeutic nurse-client relationship.

The member engaged in a personal and romantic relationship with the spouse of a patient, who was also a former patient, and continued to provide care to the patient while involved with her spouse.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a 10-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations on the member's certificate of registration, noting the mitigating factor that the member was a victim of domestic violence and manipulation by the former patient.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the October 21, 2020 decision of D.L. Edwards J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000 to the moving party in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adduce an expert report at an upcoming merits hearing regarding alleged misleading statements and fraud by the respondents in relation to a solar energy investment fund.

The respondents objected to the report's admissibility.

The Commission first determined that it was appropriate to decide the admissibility issue at a preliminary stage before the merits hearing, applying the Mega-C test.

On the merits of the admissibility, the Commission held that the expert's opinions on solar industry norms were rendered irrelevant by the respondents' undertaking not to lead evidence or make submissions on those points.

The expert's opinion on the reasonable expectations of investors was deemed unnecessary as it fell within the Commission's own expertise.

Consequently, the expert report was ruled inadmissible.

The member, a professional engineer, faced allegations of professional misconduct related to inappropriate and disparaging comments made during a PEO Council election campaign.

The member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand to be recorded on the register for six months and publication of the findings without the member's name, noting the member's cooperation, lack of prior disciplinary history, and personal health challenges as mitigating factors.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) appealed a decision of its Discipline Panel that dismissed four allegations of professional misconduct against an engineer and his firm regarding their environmental assessment and remediation of an oil spill.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Panel committed several errors of law, including applying a standard of proof higher than the balance of probabilities, failing to treat practising without a Certificate of Authorization as a strict liability offence, improperly drawing an adverse inference, and applying the tort concepts of harm and causation to the regulatory definition of negligence.

The court set aside the Panel's decision and remitted the matter to be reheard by a differently constituted panel.

During a case management conference, the respondent requested an adjournment of the application for judicial review until an in-person hearing could be held, objecting to a video conference format.

The court dismissed the request, noting that party consent is not required for video hearings under the COVID-19 Practice Direction.

The court found the matter suitable for a video hearing as it relied on a written record with no oral testimony, and emphasized the need to maintain court operations during the pandemic.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and the granting of summary judgment and broad injunctive relief in a defamation action brought by the respondent union and its members.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the anti-SLAPP motion, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the harm suffered by the respondents outweighed the low public interest in the appellant's expression.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the injunctive relief, narrowing the publication ban to prohibit only defamatory statements and setting aside the restrictions on the appellant's movements and communications as overly broad and unjustified by the defamation findings.

The appellant father and respondent mother both brought motions to introduce fresh evidence in an appeal from an arbitrator's decision declining to order their children be vaccinated.

The court applied a relaxed Palmer test, given the case involved the best interests of children.

The court admitted the father's fresh expert evidence regarding vaccine safety and the mother's genetic variation, as well as evidence challenging the credibility of one of the mother's experts.

The court also admitted the mother's fresh evidence from the children's family doctor regarding their current health and the psychological impact of the litigation.

A temporary publication ban on the children's health information was made permanent.

A foreign-trained Chartered Accountant from India was charged with eight regulatory offences under three Ontario accounting statutes for unlawfully using professional accounting designations and initials (CPA, CA, CMA, FCA, FCMA) on multiple websites and social media platforms while not being a member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario.

The defendant was a student of CPA Ontario who failed the Common Final Examination three times and was deregistered.

Despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter in March 2017, the defendant continued to publicly display his foreign designations on websites, LinkedIn, Kijiji advertisements, and other platforms, implying he was qualified to practice accounting in Ontario.

The court found the defendant guilty on all eight counts after determining the prosecution proved the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant failed to establish a due diligence defence.

The court also dismissed the defendant's Charter application challenging the constitutionality of the prohibitions, finding that while the restrictions infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b), they were reasonable limits justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The moving parties, trustees of a family trust, sought to consolidate or temporarily stay an application for a passing of accounts and declarations of breach of fiduciary duty, pending the outcome of a complex related action concerning the ownership of family businesses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the two proceedings did not share common questions of fact or law, and that delaying the application would prejudice the beneficiaries' right to a timely accounting and preservation of trust assets.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a permanent injunction and relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord had terminated the lease due to the tenant's failure to remedy a persistent mould issue that was affecting an adjacent unit.

The court found that the tenant had not acted diligently or in good faith to repair the issue despite numerous opportunities.

The court dismissed the application for an injunction, finding the tenant barely established a serious issue to be tried, failed to show irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture due to the tenant's poor conduct and failure to come to court with clean hands.

The appellant, FCT Insurance Company Ltd., appealed a trial judgment that found FCT responsible for losses sustained by the respondent, John Breen, arising from structural defects in a cottage property for which he had obtained title insurance.

The trial judge found that the defects rendered the title unmarketable and fell within the coverage of the title insurance policy, relying on the principles established in MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Company of Canada.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in applying MacDonald to the facts of this case.

The court distinguished this case on two fundamental grounds: first, Mr. Breen was on notice at the time of purchase of potential problems with the building permit process; and second, even if a final inspection had been conducted, it would not have revealed the hidden construction defects.

The court concluded that the situation involved unmarketability of the land rather than the title, and that title insurance is designed to protect against defects that would be revealed by off-title searches, not hidden defects.

The appeal was allowed and the claim dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion for a publication ban and sealing order in an appeal concerning child vaccination.

The mother, who brought the original motion, sought costs, arguing the father's publicizing of the case necessitated the motion and increased her expenses.

The father argued for no costs or costs payable to him, asserting he protected the children's identity and consented to much of the relief.

The court found that while the mother achieved some confidentiality protections, she did not obtain all the relief sought (e.g., sealing the file).

The court concluded that the motion would have been necessary regardless of the father's actions due to the open court principle and the need to notify media.

Therefore, the father's behaviour did not cause or increase the mother's costs, and no costs were ordered for the motion.

The children's mother (L.K.) brought a motion for a publication ban, file initialization, and sealing of the court file in an appeal concerning the vaccination status of the parties' children.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test, finding a serious risk of harm and stigmatization to the children if their identities were revealed.

A tailored publication ban was ordered, prohibiting the publication of identifying information for the children (names, dates of birth, addresses, schools, genders, images, voices, and most health information, except their unvaccinated status) and the parties (names, voices, images).

The court also ordered that the title of proceedings and public documents use initials only, and that future publications not link to non-compliant prior reports.

The request to seal the court file and retroactively amend existing publications was dismissed due to lack of evidentiary basis and practical unenforceability, respectively.

The respondent mother brought a motion for a publication ban in a family law appeal concerning the vaccination of the parties' children.

The mother sought an interim publication ban and sealing order pending the hearing of the motion.

The court found that the mother had not provided proper notice to the media under the Practice Direction because she used initials instead of the parties' names.

The court granted an interim publication ban to preserve the mother's ability to argue for the children's privacy interests at the full hearing, and directed her to provide proper notice to the media using the parties' names.

The plaintiffs brought an action in defamation against the defendant, a former union member, for publishing numerous derogatory posts and videos online.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and the defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that an anti-SLAPP motion can be heard concurrently with a summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding the posts defamatory and malicious, and awarded a permanent injunction and costs.

The Chief Adjudicator of the Independent Assessment Process under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement appealed two directions issued by the Eastern Administrative Judge.

The first direction prohibited the appellant from participating in three appeals and ordered him to withdraw his facta, finding him insubordinate and in defiance of the supervising courts.

The second direction rescinded the first and appointed an amicus curiae to bring a Request for Direction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside both directions, finding that the appellant was owed procedural fairness and natural justice, which were not afforded.

The court also found the second direction violated the principle of functus officio.

The court held that any future proceedings regarding the appellant's conduct must follow the mandated Request for Direction process and be conducted by a different supervising judge.

The appellants sought to add three health care providers as defendants to a medical malpractice action more than two years after the original injury.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the wrong test under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the motion judge failed to make proper findings of fact regarding when the appellants knew or ought reasonably to have known of their claims against the proposed defendants.

The court also found that the motion judge erred in treating lack of due diligence as a standalone ground for finding claims statute-barred.

The key distinction was that the claims against the proposed defendants differed from the claim against the original defendant, as they involved allegations that the health care providers failed to take immediate action once cauda equina syndrome was suspected, information that was only revealed during examinations for discovery in 2015.

The Chief Adjudicator of the Independent Assessment Process under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement appealed a direction issued by the Eastern Administrative Judge that rescinded an earlier direction prohibiting the Chief Adjudicator's participation in three appeals.

The Chief Adjudicator sought a stay of the second direction pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the stay, finding serious issues to be tried regarding procedural fairness, the functus officio principle, and the propriety of the RFD process.

The court found that allowing parallel proceedings could result in irreparable harm through inconsistent results and damage to the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in her jury charge by failing to sufficiently caution the jury that items linking the appellant to a particular address were relevant only to his relationship with the vehicle's passenger and did not directly support his identification as the driver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge's instructions clearly identified the relevance of the evidence and that the jury was sufficiently instructed on identification and circumstantial evidence.

The appellant also appealed his sentence, but as he had served the custodial portion, that issue was moot.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed.