7 total
$60 million class action settlement for historical abuse at Ontario Training Schools approved.
The plaintiff brought motions to approve a $60 million settlement in a class action concerning historical institutional abuse at Ontario Training Schools between 1953 and 1984.
The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks and the benefits of a trauma-informed claims process.
The court also approved Class Counsel's contingency fee of 28.5%, a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, the disclosure of class member contact information to the Public Guardian and Trustee, and a motion by a class member to rescind his prior opt-out due to medical difficulties.
Judicial review of HPARB decision dismissed; failure to explicitly reference expert report did not render decision unreasonable.
The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which confirmed an administrative disposition imposed by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Royal College of Dentists.
The applicant argued that the ICRC's failure to explicitly consider an expert report rendered its decision unreasonable.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the failure to reference the report was not a sufficiently serious shortcoming to undermine the justification, intelligibility, and transparency of the ICRC's decision.
The court deferred to HPARB's assessment that the ICRC had considered all records obtained during its investigation.
Judicial review dismissed; hospital board's cancellation of operating room access required no procedural fairness under s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act.
The applicants, seven private practice oral and maxillofacial surgeons, applied for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their access to operating rooms.
They argued they were denied procedural fairness.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was a decision to 'cease a service' under s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which expressly displaces the common law right to notice or a hearing.
The hospital had cancelled the legacy program to comply with its funding obligations under a Hospital Service Accountability Agreement.
Court upheld revocation of a pharmacy's billing privileges for false claims despite ownership change.
The appellant, Neighbour’s Drug Mart Ltd., appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of its judicial review application.
The original decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs terminated Neighbour’s Health Network System Agreement, revoked its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, and suspended its entitlement to payment due to false or unsubstantiated claims.
Neighbour’s argued the Divisional Court erred by misapprehending the record, imposing an unsupported sanction, and creating absolute liability.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the Divisional Court's application of the reasonableness standard or its conclusions regarding the owner's responsibility and the regulatory scheme's honour system.
The court also rejected the argument that the Executive Officer's consent to a change of control precluded subsequent termination, emphasizing the new owner's assumption of all liabilities.
The successful plaintiff on an anti-SLAPP motion was denied costs pursuant to the default statutory rule.
The plaintiff sought costs after successfully resisting an anti-SLAPP motion brought by two defendants and partially succeeding on a motion to strike pleadings.
The court, interpreting section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, ruled that a responding party who successfully resists an anti-SLAPP motion is generally not entitled to costs unless exceptional circumstances warrant it.
Despite the plaintiff incurring significant legal expenses and the judge's view that the motion was "on the wrong side of the boundary" of abusive use, the court found no basis to deviate from the statutory rule, compelling it to deny costs.
However, a separate settlement for $4,000 was reached with another defendant (CUHMA) for their appearance.
Judicial review dismissed; College's order for remediation and caution over dentist's TikTok videos was reasonable.
The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.
The Committee had ordered the applicant to complete a remediation program and receive a verbal caution after he posted sexually suggestive TikTok videos linked to his dental practice.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's conclusions regarding the breach of practice advisories and the risk to the public were justified and available on the record.
The court dismissed an anti-SLAPP motion against a defamation claim but struck several derivative tort claims.
The defendants Kenneth LeDez and Ron Linden brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), or alternatively, to strike certain pleadings under Rule 21.01(1)(b).
The plaintiff, a hyperbaric medicine specialist, sued after LeDez accused her of unethical conduct and orchestrated her removal from a professional association, stemming from her "off-label" use of hyperbaric procedures.
The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendants lacked a valid defense, and that the public interest in allowing the suit to continue outweighed protecting the defendants' expressions, which were found to exceed privileged occasions and potentially be malicious.
The alternative motion to strike pleadings was granted in part, striking claims for unlawful interference with economic relations, conspiracy, bad faith, and breach of fiduciary duty, but allowing the corporate oppression remedy claim to stand as it was based on specific corporate acts rather than expressions.
