Brock Turville

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by misdiagnosing a patient's melanoma as a nail fungus, performing unnecessary nail avulsion surgery, and failing to refer the patient to a physician.

The patient subsequently required amputation of his right toe.

Proceeding on an Agreed Statement of Facts, the Tribunal found the registrant engaged in professional misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a nine-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial coursework, mentorship, and costs of $24,000.

The plaintiff, a residential tenant, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against a neighbouring bar and its landlords, alleging nuisance from amplified sound and noise vibrations.

The plaintiff sought orders restricting the bar's operations, requiring the installation of a noise limiter, and compelling police response to complaints.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of nuisance under the alternative Hamilton test, noting the lack of expert evidence regarding sound levels in the plaintiff's apartment.

The court considered dismissing a counterclaim brought by the self-represented defendant by counterclaim, Christopher Tinkasimire, under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The main action had been dismissed on consent.

After reviewing Mr. Tinkasimire's submissions, the court found the counterclaim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The counterclaim lacked a legal basis, was rambling and difficult to understand, contained rhetorical questions, and Mr. Tinkasimire's submissions were unpersuasive, including an unsubstantiated request to increase damages.

The counterclaim was dismissed without costs.

The registrar referred this matter to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) at the request of Bradley Court Limited, the plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim), after the main action was dismissed.

The court reviewed the counterclaim filed by Christopher Tinkasimire, the self-represented defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim), and found it appeared to be frivolous and vexatious.

The court ordered that Mr. Tinkasimire be given notice in Form 2.1A to make submissions as to why the counterclaim should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1).

Pending the outcome of this written hearing, the counterclaim was stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and no further filings would be accepted except for Mr. Tinkasimire's submissions.