3 total
Leave is required to appeal a temporary spousal support order made under the Divorce Act.
The respondent appealed a motion judge's ruling that leave was required to appeal a temporary spousal support order made under the Divorce Act.
The respondent argued that the Divorce Act provided an unfettered right of appeal that superseded the leave requirements of the Courts of Justice Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Divorce Act's appeal provisions must be read in conjunction with provincial procedural rules, meaning leave to appeal an interlocutory order is still required.
Doctor's licence revocation overturned and replaced with one-year suspension due to tribunal's factual error.
The appellant, a medical doctor, appealed a decision of the disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
The committee had revoked his licence and ordered him to pay $63,235 in costs after finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence.
The Divisional Court found that the committee made an obvious error in its written reasons by stating the appellant had a disregard for the welfare of his patients, a finding it had explicitly rejected during the oral hearing.
The court intervened, setting aside the revocation and substituting a one-year suspension, and reduced the costs award to $10,000.
Appeal from convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement dismissed; fresh evidence application rejected.
The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement.
He argued that the trial judge erred in refusing to order disclosure of the complainant's psychiatric records, allowing the Crown to call the treating psychiatrist in reply, and assessing the complainant's credibility.
The appellant also argued the verdicts were inconsistent because he was acquitted of sexual assault with a weapon.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the false memory defence or the complainant's evidence.
The Court also rejected the appellant's application to introduce fresh evidence, concluding it would not assist in preventing a miscarriage of justice.
