Antonio Villarin

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for sexually harassing four co-workers and breaching patient privacy by taking and sharing photographs of patient health records without consent.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct, noting that his behaviour was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a 6-month suspension, remedial education, and a 24-month employer notification requirement.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to change a 2010 order, which resulted in a significant reduction of his support arrears and an increase in ongoing child support.

This endorsement addresses the father's request for costs.

The court found the father to be the overall successful party, particularly on the dominant issue of arrears reduction, and noted the mother's unreasonable conduct in failing to timely disclose relevant information to the Family Responsibility Office.

Despite both parties' offers to settle not meeting the technical requirements for costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, the court exercised its discretion, considering the father's reasonable conduct and the mother's unreasonable actions.

The mother was ordered to pay the father's costs, fixed at $4,500.

The plaintiff, a third mortgagee, brought a motion for summary judgment against the mortgagor and two guarantors for possession and payment of a mortgage debt.

The defendants largely failed to respond.

The court dismissed the motion and the underlying claim without prejudice, finding that the statement of claim was entirely deficient and bore little resemblance to the confusing evidence presented.

The court noted significant issues with the claim, including the demand for unenforceable penalty interest and the reliance on a collateral mortgage that was not signed by the defendants or properly pleaded.

The plaintiff was granted leave to commence a fresh proceeding with a properly drafted statement of claim.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a summary judgment motion seeking sale of the mortgaged property, possession, and payment of the mortgage debt after default on a third mortgage.

The defendant argued there were triable issues concerning the amount advanced, the purpose of the mortgage, related mortgage transactions, and his alleged inability to understand the transaction due to disability.

Applying the post-Hryniak summary judgment framework under Rule 20, the court found the record sufficient to determine that the mortgage funds were advanced as directed, the mortgage was in default, and the psychiatric report did not support incapacity.

The court also found no evidence supporting the counterclaim for damages tied to another mortgage transaction.

Summary judgment was granted.