Brian Bellmore

The applicant, a Chartered Professional Accountant, sought judicial review to quash the respondent's decisions to investigate him and issue allegations of professional misconduct for failing to cooperate.

The applicant argued the respondent exceeded its jurisdiction and breached natural justice by refusing to identify the complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature to intervene before the administrative process concluded and holding that the applicant had a duty to cooperate with the investigation.

Following the withdrawal of a spousal support application, the estate trustees of the deceased respondent sought a costs order jointly and severally against the applicant and her former lawyer.

The trustees alleged the proceeding was frivolous and vexatious and argued the lawyer had acted in conflict of interest and improperly initiated litigation despite knowing the claim had no chance of success.

The court considered Rules 12(3) and 24(9) of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing personal costs orders against counsel.

The court held the support claim was not clearly devoid of merit because statutory provisions permit setting aside domestic contracts in cases of unconscionability or lack of disclosure.

As the lawyer had acted on instructions and did not run up costs or abuse the court’s process, no personal costs order was warranted.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (ICAO) appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed professional misconduct convictions against three auditors regarding their 1997 audit of Livent Inc. The auditors cross-appealed the Divisional Court's decision upholding other convictions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the ICAO's appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee did not breach procedural fairness and provided adequate reasons for its findings of misconduct.

The Court also held that subsequent legislative amendments retroactively validated the Discipline Committee's costs award.

The auditors' cross-appeal was dismissed, and the Discipline Committee's original decisions and penalties were reinstated.

The appellant appealed an order finding presence-based jurisdiction in Ontario on the basis that it was carrying on business there.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding of fact.

The parties agreed the motion judge failed to consider whether Ontario was the forum conveniens and asked the Court of Appeal to decide the issue.

The Court held that because jurisdiction was presence-based, the onus was on the appellant to show Quebec was clearly a more appropriate forum.

The Court found Ontario was the forum conveniens, noting the respondent worked in Ontario, was fired in Ontario, and intended to call Ontario witnesses.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, chartered accountants charged with professional misconduct, brought a motion for review of an order dismissing their request to compel the respondent's Professional Conduct Committee to file a record of proceedings under section 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the committee's power to investigate and charge is not a 'statutory power of decision' as defined in the Act, and therefore section 10 does not apply.

The applicants sought judicial review of the investigative process leading to charges by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

On a motion to determine who must file the record under Rule 68.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the Committee was not acting as a court or tribunal in its investigative function.

Therefore, Rule 68.04(1)(b) applied, requiring the applicants to prepare and file the record.

The motion was dismissed.