Christine Wadsworth

The court approved a $30 million settlement in a class action brought by shareholders of Aphria Inc. against the company and two of its officers, alleging misrepresentations in public disclosures about major business acquisitions.

The settlement was reached on the eve of trial after extensive discovery and negotiation, with the court finding the terms fair and reasonable given the risks of trial and potential insolvency proceedings.

The court also approved class counsel fees, disbursements, a levy to the Class Proceedings Fund, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the defendant surgeon for medical malpractice following a brachial plexus injury sustained during shoulder replacement surgery.

The sole issue was whether the plaintiff proved surgical negligence.

The court concluded that the injury was more likely than not the result of surgical negligence, specifically due to excessive force or prolonged stretch applied to the arm during the glenoid exposure phase of the surgery.

The court found for the plaintiff, dismissing the defendant's arguments regarding non-negligent causes and emphasizing that while a bad outcome alone does not prove negligence, the extreme rarity and nature of the injury provided strong circumstantial evidence of a breach of the standard of care.

The plaintiff brought a medical negligence action against her family physician, alleging he failed to obtain informed consent regarding the increased relative risks of blood clots associated with the birth control pill Yaz.

The plaintiff suffered a stroke shortly after taking sample packs of Yaz provided by the physician.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the physician met the standard of care for disclosure and that the plaintiff would have taken the medication even if fully informed of the statistical risks.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove factual causation, as medical evidence indicated her stroke was cryptogenic and not caused by the medication.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought professional misconduct allegations against an occasional teacher for his conduct during two classes on December 13, 2017.

The Discipline Committee found that the teacher failed to adequately control his classes, resulting in chaos and students leaving the classroom.

The Committee also found that the teacher engaged in verbal and psychological abuse by calling a student 'racist' and 'mouthy', referring to a student as the 'Queen of Sheba', and making disparaging comments about the school.

The Committee concluded that the teacher's actions constituted professional misconduct, breaching multiple ethical standards and statutory duties.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her Statement of Claim to particularize allegations of sexual assault and to plead similar fact evidence against a former pediatric doctor.

The court granted leave for the particularization of the assault but dismissed the motion to plead similar facts.

The dismissal was based on Section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, which prohibits the admissibility of records from disciplinary proceedings in civil actions, and the principle that pleadings should contain material facts, not evidence.

The court also addressed the plaintiff's use of initials and awarded costs to the defendants.

The Joint Liquidators of Stanford International Bank Limited (SIB) appealed the dismissal of their negligence claim against The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank).

SIB was a vehicle for a massive Ponzi scheme.

The Liquidators claimed TD Bank was negligent in providing correspondent banking services by failing to detect and protect SIB from insider abuse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that TD Bank did not owe a novel duty of care to monitor SIB for internal fraud, as this fell outside the scope of TD Bank's undertaking as a correspondent bank.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's alternative finding that even if a duty existed, there was no breach of the standard of care, and that the trial judge's procedural rulings regarding witness recall were fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct.

The member admitted to engaging in a pattern of offensive behaviour towards six female colleagues over multiple academic years, including making inappropriate sexual comments, physically intimidating them, and touching two colleagues without consent.

The member had previously pled guilty to simple assault in relation to one of the incidents.

The Discipline Committee accepted the parties' Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, and the successful completion of coursework on professional boundaries and ethics.

The defendant, Dr. Yair Karas, moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's medical malpractice action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff, Denise Bosse, alleged claims of uninformed consent and breach of standard of care related to Radial Keratotomy (RK) surgeries performed by the defendant between 1994 and 2005.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual and constructive knowledge of her injury, its cause by the defendant's acts, and that a legal proceeding was an appropriate remedy by July 11, 2011, when she filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Consequently, the two-year limitation period expired in July 2013, nine months before the Statement of Claim was issued in April 2014.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's argument that the standard of care claim was only discoverable upon receipt of an expert report in November 2013, emphasizing that knowledge of a breach of standard of care is not required for discoverability.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

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

The member repeatedly used instructional time to present personal, one-sided views about vaccines and made dismissive comments about mental health conditions, telling students that depression and anxiety were not real and that vaccines cause autism.

He also used disrespectful language, telling students to 'shut up' when they disagreed.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal and psychological abuse of students.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and a six-month suspension, noting that the member had also irrevocably resigned and undertaken never to teach again in Ontario.

The Member, an elementary school teacher, faced allegations of incompetence following two unsatisfactory Teacher Performance Appraisals (TPAs).

The TPAs identified deficiencies in differentiating instruction, establishing learning goals, classroom management, and student engagement.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member incompetent and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the Member to complete an Additional Qualification course focusing on curriculum, lesson planning, and classroom management, and to undergo two performance appraisals by her employer within two years.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with students, including inappropriate physical contact, texting students on her personal phone, and showing favouritism to male student athletes.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension of her teaching certificate, and the completion of a boundary violations course.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for making inappropriate comments to students about their weight and clothing, and for physically tripping students.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal and emotional abuse, unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of a course on boundaries, noting the Member's prior discipline history for similar conduct as an aggravating factor.

The joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank (SIB) and a group of investors brought actions against TD Bank, SIB's primary U.S. dollar correspondent bank, for knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

The plaintiffs alleged that TD Bank should have detected and prevented the massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by SIB's owner, Allen Stanford.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the actions, finding that TD Bank had no actual knowledge of the fraud and was not reckless or wilfully blind.

The court also held that TD Bank did not owe a novel duty of care to protect its customer from insider abuse, and even if it did, it met the standard of care of a reasonable banker during the relevant period.

The appellant obstetrician appealed a jury's finding of negligence and causation in a birth injury case, arguing the jury misapplied the "but for" test and that the verdict was unreasonable due to lack of evidence on timely delivery.

The appellant also claimed the trial judge improperly questioned witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's application of the "but for" test, finding the verdict reasonable based on expert evidence, and concluding the trial judge's questions were proper clarifications within established judicial protocol.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers rejecting a joint submission on penalty.

The joint submission proposed a two-month suspension to be served over the summer months for harassing conduct toward a teaching candidate.

The Committee rejected the summer timing, ordering the suspension to start in September.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee erred by misapplying the stringent public interest test from Anthony-Cook.

The Committee impermissibly substituted its own view of a fit penalty without demonstrating that the joint submission was so unhinged from the circumstances that its acceptance would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendants in a proposed privacy class action regarding a data breach brought a motion to transfer and stay four identical Small Claims Court actions.

The court held that under s. 13 of the Class Proceedings Act, the small claims should be temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the certification motion, as allowing them to proceed would circumvent the opt-out provisions of the Act.

However, the court declined to transfer the actions to the Superior Court, finding such a transfer premature until the certification motion is decided.

The Member, a high school teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for drinking alcohol with underage students, providing alcohol to a student, and inappropriately touching and attempting to kiss a student.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations and agreed to a statement of uncontested facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate and directed that he receive a reprimand.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for engaging in a secret personal and sexual relationship with a high school student between 2001 and 2003.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the student's testimony highly credible and concluded that the member engaged in professional misconduct, including sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate and a written reprimand.

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

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for professional misconduct, alleging physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of a student.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, admitting to an inappropriate relationship that involved grooming the student for a sexual purpose, touching without consent, and emotionally abusive behaviour.

The Discipline Committee accepted the uncontested facts and found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions for sexual abuse under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate and issued a reprimand.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for publishing a book and online blog posts containing false and derogatory comments about colleagues and his employer.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting that his actions failed to maintain the standards of the profession and constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered that the member be reprimanded, his certificate of qualification and registration be suspended for two months, and that he complete a course on ethics and communication.