Brian John Gover

The Children's Aid Society applied for judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry that allowed public disclosure of CAS documents containing information reported to the Child Abuse Register.

The Commissioner had reasoned that because the documents came from CAS files rather than the Register itself, they were not protected by the confidentiality provision in s. 75(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the ruling, holding that a literal interpretation would lead to an absurdity and frustrate the legislative intent.

The court found that the information in the CAS files and the information protected by the Register's confidentiality provision are co-extensive and must be protected from public disclosure.

The appellant sought a publication ban on the name of its employee, who had been acquitted of historical sexual abuse charges, in relation to evidence given at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

The Commissioner refused the ban, finding the public interest in openness outweighed the employee's privacy interests.

The Divisional Court dismissed an application for judicial review, applying a reasonableness standard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court correctly identified reasonableness as the standard of review and that the Commissioner reasonably applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test in balancing the protection of innocence against the public interest in an open inquiry.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a Registered Practical Nurse for misappropriating a vial of Hydromorphone and failing to document medication administration on 35 occasions.

The hearing proceeded in the member's absence.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations proven on a balance of probabilities, relying on clear and convincing evidence including testimony from the clinical manager and narcotic control records.

The member's conduct was found to be disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and practice monitoring conditions upon reinstatement.

The applicant sought judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry denying a publication ban on the identity of one of its employees.

The Divisional Court determined the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter.

The court found the Commissioner did not err in concluding the employee's identity was relevant to the inquiry's mandate, nor did he act unreasonably in applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test to deny the publication ban.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, specifically a memorandum containing foundational information for the final opinion of an expert retained by the respondents.

A single judge of the Court of Appeal ordered the production of the memorandum under Rule 31.06(3).

The respondents moved to set aside this order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, holding that Rule 31.06(3) applies only to the discovery stage of litigation and does not entitle a party to obtain disclosure after trial, especially when the party knew of the expert's final opinion prior to trial but failed to seek discovery of the foundational information at that time.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse who had been convicted of fraud over $5,000 for unlawfully obtaining social assistance benefits.

The member failed to disclose this criminal conviction on his annual registration renewal forms for four consecutive years.

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

The member was reprimanded, suspended for 45 days, and ordered to complete an ethics course.

The applicant sought judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry that allowed the Commission to hear evidence from alleged victims of historical sexual abuse.

The applicant argued that hearing such evidence would convert the inquiry into a substitute police investigation and exceed its mandate by requiring findings of civil or criminal responsibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner clearly understood his mandate to assess the institutional response rather than determine individual liability, and that he appropriately balanced the need for the evidence against the applicant's reputational interests.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for misappropriating narcotics, failing to conduct adequate assessments, and failing to properly document the administration of medications at a long-term care facility.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct, noting a pattern of targeting vulnerable residents to misappropriate Tylenol #3.

The member's certificate of registration was revoked.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the production of a memorandum detailing a conversation between the defendants' former counsel and their expert witness, Dr. Grafius.

The defendants claimed the memorandum was protected by litigation privilege.

The Court of Appeal held that rule 31.06(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure must be interpreted broadly, requiring the disclosure of all foundational information for a testifying expert's report.

The court ordered the production of the memorandum, finding that litigation privilege does not protect the foundational information of an expert called to testify at trial.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for failing to accurately assess and document a client's heel ulcer, and for continuing to practise and hold herself out as a nurse while her certificate of registration was suspended for non-payment of fees.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct on all allegations.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a nine-month suspension, terms and conditions on her certificate, and $1,500 in costs.

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) which reinstated a police officer who had been terminated by a Hearing Officer.

The officer, who developed a cocaine addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder while working undercover, had pled guilty to drug possession and disciplinary charges.

The employer and the officer had presented a joint submission on penalty proposing reinstatement with strict conditions, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of termination.

OCCPS found the Hearing Officer's decision unreasonable and substituted the joint submission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Chief of Police's appeal, holding that OCCPS correctly applied the reasonableness standard of review and reasonably concluded that the Hearing Officer ignored relevant evidence and the employer's duty to accommodate the officer's disability.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct.

The member admitted to inappropriately raising her voice and using inappropriate force in disciplining two students.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, publication of the decision, and imposed terms on the member's certificate requiring successful completion of courses in classroom management and anger management, failing which her certificate would be suspended.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct relating to inappropriate behaviour towards adult students, including kissing a student during a CPR demonstration and making inappropriate jokes and gestures.

The member pleaded guilty to failing to maintain the standards of the profession, engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission on penalty.

The member was reprimanded, ordered to complete a course on classroom management, and received a one-month suspension that would be suspended upon fulfillment of the conditions.

The Member, a registered nurse and co-owner of a private seniors' residence, faced numerous allegations of professional misconduct relating to the care of a vulnerable elderly resident.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member unnecessarily restrained the resident, confined them to their room, failed to administer prescribed medications, and failed to seek required medical attention, ultimately leading to the resident's death from bronchopneumonia.

The Member also directed untrained, unregulated staff to perform nursing functions, submitted fraudulent invoices for care not provided, and misrepresented the facility's services and visiting policies.

The Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including physical and emotional abuse, and ordered the revocation of her certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for allegedly slapping and verbally abusing a resident at a nursing home.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

Based on the clear and convincing testimony of an eyewitness personal care worker, the Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and imposed remedial conditions on the Member's certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for bathing one patient in cold water and preparing to bathe another in cold water out of anger.

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

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to meet the standards of practice and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and the completion of remedial courses on patient-focused care and abuse prevention.

The respondents, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission, brought a motion requesting that Justice Matlow recuse himself from a judicial review panel due to a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from his prior advocacy against a City development project.

Justice Matlow, deciding the recusal issue alone, dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and that the respondents had waived their right to object by delaying.

However, the other two panel members, Justices Greer and E. Macdonald, concluded that a reasonable apprehension of bias did exist.

Because they could not order Justice Matlow to recuse himself, they stepped down from the panel to prevent a breach of natural justice, resulting in the panel being struck and the application ordered to be heard de novo.

The respondents, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission, brought a motion for the recusal of Justice Matlow and to strike the panel that had previously granted an application for judicial review.

The moving parties argued that Justice Matlow's prior involvement in contentious issues with the City created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Justices Greer and E. Macdonald, the other members of the panel, were unaware of the extent of Justice Matlow's involvement prior to the motion.

They concluded that an objective third party would find a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Consequently, they decided to stand down, strike the panel, and declare their previous decision null and void to ensure the matter did not proceed in breach of natural justice.

The member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct including inappropriate comments and physical contact with students.

Following an agreed statement of facts and a guilty plea, the Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand to be recorded on the register and the publication of a summary of the findings and order.

Two competitors in the outbound international mail industry brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the interpretation of the Canada Post Corporation Act's exclusive privilege provisions.

The moving parties sought to be added as parties or friends of the court, arguing they had a direct interest as they were facing similar injunction proceedings by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, adding the moving parties as intervenors with the right to augment the record, finding they had a sufficient interest and common questions of law with the main proceeding.