Caroline H. Humphrey

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking permission to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the Member.

The College submitted there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding, as the Member's professional competencies had improved through the New Teacher Induction program and there was insufficient evidence of misconduct.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding it was not in the public interest to expend resources where there was no reasonable prospect of a finding.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several banks for allegedly conspiring to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the five criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but modified the class definition to exclude indirect purchasers (investors) and direct purchasers who transacted with non-defendant banks.

The court certified the action for direct purchasers who transacted with the defendant banks.

In a costs decision following a professional liability trial, the court determined that the defendants were the successful parties despite findings that they breached their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs had sought over $16 million in damages but were only awarded $2,000 in nominal damages.

The court found the defendants' claimed costs of $1,261,235 to be reasonable, but reduced the award by 25% to reflect the court's finding of breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $925,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiffs sued their former law firm and former in-house counsel for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from a commercial transaction and subsequent settlement.

The court found that the former in-house counsel breached his fiduciary duty by acting for the opposing party at a mediation, and that the law firm breached its standard of care by failing to warn the plaintiffs of this conflict.

The court also found the law firm breached its fiduciary duty by obtaining an ineffective conflict waiver.

However, the court concluded that these breaches did not cause the plaintiffs' claimed business losses, as the plaintiffs would have settled regardless and suffered no loss of chance.

The court awarded nominal damages of $2,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action and approve a $2.25 million settlement regarding the defendants' systemic collection of credit scores during the automobile insurance claims adjusting process, which the Privacy Commissioner found breached PIPEDA.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved a 60-day opt-out period, a cy-près distribution to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the notice plan, a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, and class counsel fees of $500,000 plus disbursements.

The respondent retailers brought a motion to strike an application by an animal rights organization and its founder, who sought a declaration that the use of glue traps by members of the public violates the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code and the OSPCA Act.

The court found that the applicants did not meet the threshold for public interest standing, as a declaratory application was not a reasonable and effective means to bring the issue to court when other avenues, such as private prosecutions or complaints to enforcement bodies, had not been pursued.

The motion to strike was granted in part.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing for a teacher found to have engaged in professional misconduct, including physically abusing a student and communicating inappropriately with a principal and a colleague.

Accepting a joint submission, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and terms requiring the completion of coursework on anger management and professional boundaries before returning to teaching.

The member was also ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the College.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers refusing to remove a 2014 finding of professional misconduct and reprimand from the public register.

The applicants argued that because the remedial course condition had been fulfilled, only the reprimand remained, entitling the teacher to its removal after three years under the College's by-laws.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that the initial penalty imposed included both a reprimand and a course, meaning it was not 'limited to a reprimand' as required by the by-law for automatic removal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order approving a settlement reached with the defendants Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Canada Limited in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settlement requires the settling defendants to pay USD$2.3 million and provide cooperation in the ongoing prosecution against the remaining defendants.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was in line with previously approved settlements in the proceeding.

The settlement and the previously approved distribution protocol were approved.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for submitting 77 false healthcare benefit claims totaling $3,385 to her school board's benefits provider.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including signing a false document, failing to comply with the ethical standards of the profession, and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the member to receive a reprimand and to successfully complete a course on ethics and personal responsibility.

The plaintiff, a golf professional, brought a medical malpractice action against the defendant orthopedic surgeon regarding an elective total wrist fusion surgery.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to obtain informed consent by not disclosing alternative, less drastic surgical options that would have preserved some wrist mobility, which was essential for his livelihood.

The court found that the defendant breached his duty of disclosure by failing to explore the plaintiff's specific needs, inadequately describing the surgery, and failing to discuss viable alternative procedures like a four-corner fusion or proximal row carpectomy.

The court concluded that both the subjective and objective tests for causation were met, as neither the plaintiff nor a reasonable person in his position would have consented to a total wrist fusion if properly informed.

The plaintiff was awarded $20,000 in general damages and $40,000 for past loss of income.