Christine Wadsworth

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for criminal harassment.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant based on two text messages sent consecutively to the complainant, finding they constituted 'repeated communication'.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that two text messages sent at the same time constitute a single communication, not repeated communication.

The court also found the trial judge's conclusions that the complainant was harassed and that her fear was objectively reasonable were unreasonable, given the lack of threats and the context of the messages.

The conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered.

A case management endorsement scheduling an appeal from a decision of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The appeal concerns a discipline panel's decision to reject a joint submission on penalty and impose a higher penalty.

The College does not oppose the appeal.

The court provided procedural directions for a ZOOM videoconference hearing, including the filing of electronic materials and costs submissions.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against the Member for professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a student.

The Member did not attend the electronic hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member engaged in professional misconduct and sexual abuse.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, a written reprimand, and costs of $10,000 payable to the College.

Written reasons were to follow.

The respondent's husband died during a follow-up angiogram as part of a clinical trial.

The respondent sued the principal investigator, Dr. Strauss, for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The jury found breach of standard of care but no causation in negligence.

The trial judge found breach of an ad hoc fiduciary duty and awarded damages, stating causation was removed from the analysis in the fiduciary context.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by not examining causation in the fiduciary context.

The Court found no causal link between the alleged fiduciary breach and the loss, relying on the jury's finding on causation in the negligence claim, as the claims were based on substantially the same conduct.

The action was dismissed.

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

The parties agreed to the withdrawal in exchange for the Member's Undertaking and Acknowledgment, in which she resigned her membership, agreed not to teach in Ontario, and undertook to satisfy certain requirements before seeking reinstatement.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal was reasonable and served to protect the public interest given the evidentiary difficulties and the Member's resignation.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct relating to incidents during the 1990-1991 academic year.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of inappropriately disciplining students, making demeaning comments, and encouraging inappropriate classroom games and rivalries.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the completion of coursework on professional boundaries and classroom management.

The Member, a high school teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including physically abusing two students by grabbing, pulling, and pushing them, and failing to supervise them, which resulted in an altercation and injury to a third student.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of coursework on professional boundaries, classroom management, and anger management.

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages, alleging they were falsely implicated in a state-sponsored doping scheme and wrongfully excluded from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had exclusive jurisdiction and that the action was an abuse of process.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute fell within the broad arbitration clauses of the Olympic Charter and the athletes' entry forms.

The court also held that the action was an abuse of process as the plaintiffs were attempting to re-litigate a dispute they had already brought before the CAS.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for psychologically and emotionally abusing a student.

The Member struck a desk, yelled at the student, and made inappropriate comparisons that caused the student to cry.

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

The Member was reprimanded, suspended for two months, and ordered to complete coursework on classroom management and discipline.

Following an obstetrical malpractice trial where the jury found the defendant obstetrician 32% liable for the infant plaintiff's severe cerebral palsy, the defendant brought a motion under Rule 52.08 to dismiss the action or order a retrial.

The defendant argued the jury gave conflicting answers on causation and that there was no evidence to support their findings on the standard of care and delay in delivery.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the jury's use of the word 'contributed' did not conflict with the 'but for' causation test, and that there was ample expert evidence supporting the jury's conclusion that the defendant's failure to promptly prepare for an emergency c-section caused the infant's brain damage.

Judgment was ordered to be entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

During an ongoing medical negligence trial involving a minor plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage at birth, the parties disputed the phrasing of the jury question on causation.

The plaintiffs argued for the phrase 'caused or contributed to', relying on recent jurisprudence involving multiple tortfeasors.

The defendant argued for the conventional 'but for' standard.

The court held that the factual matrix was not so confusing as to preclude the conventional 'but for' test, and ordered the jury questions to be phrased using the 'but for' standard.

An appeal concerning a freedom of religion challenge to the medical and legal criteria for determining death.

The appellant's substitute decision-makers sought to prevent the withdrawal of life support and to rescind a death certificate based on the appellant's religious belief that death occurs only when the heart stops beating, not upon total brain death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's conclusion that the claim could not succeed.

However, the court provided important guidance on the proper analytical approach to Charter rights and Charter values, clarifying that the appellant should have been presumed to be a Charter rights holder for purposes of the substantive analysis, and that the application judge erred in her methodology regarding freedom of religion analysis and Charter values application to the common law.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against two physicians following the death of her father.

The plaintiff, acting as her father's substitute decision-maker, had requested that he be treated as 'full code'.

However, the physicians determined that the patient was actively dying and that CPR would almost certainly not benefit him and would only cause harm.

They wrote a 'do not resuscitate' order without the plaintiff's prior consent.

The plaintiff claimed damages under the Family Law Act and for nervous shock.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the physicians met the standard of care, that writing a DNR order is not a 'treatment' requiring consent under the Health Care Consent Act, and that the physicians did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff that would conflict with their paramount duty to their patient.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member who had been convicted of theft over $5,000 under the Criminal Code.

Prior to becoming a teacher, the member was a parish priest and stole significant funds from his church, resulting in a 10-month jail sentence and a $75,000 restitution order.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting that his criminal conviction for a serious breach of trust was incompatible with the standards of the teaching profession.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for engaging in inappropriate personal relationships with two vulnerable students.

The member communicated with the students about personal matters, spent time alone with one student, and sent a cryptic text message that caused distress.

The member pled guilty to professional misconduct, including failing to maintain the standards of the profession and emotional abuse.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the successful completion of a course on boundary violations.

The Member, a teacher, engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with a student that began when she was in his class and continued after she graduated, ultimately developing into a romantic and sexual relationship.

The Member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse, and failing to maintain professional standards.

The Discipline Committee accepted an expert's conclusion that the Member's actions constituted grooming behaviour.

The Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and, accepting a joint submission on penalty, ordered a reprimand and the immediate revocation of his teaching certificate.

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages related to their exclusion from the 2016 Olympic Games.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to dismiss or permanently stay the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process, and to strike the statement of claim against McLaren.

The court found that resolving the jurisdictional issues would require extensive fact-finding, including assessing conflicting expert opinions and credibility, which exceeds the scope of a Rule 21 motion.

Consequently, the Rule 21.01(3) motions were ordered to be reconstituted as Rule 20 summary judgment motions or a trial of issues, and McLaren's Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion was deferred.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for repeatedly accessing pornography, including 'teen' pornography, on a school board computer during work hours.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the Member guilty.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a 10-month suspension of the Member's certificate of qualification and registration, and an oral reprimand.

The Committee noted the Member had voluntarily resigned from the College with no intention to return to teaching, which addressed concerns about the lack of a rehabilitative coursework component in the penalty.

This application concerned the legal definition of death and the withdrawal of life support for Shalom Ouanounou, a devout Orthodox Jew, who was declared brain dead but whose family believed he was alive under Jewish law.

The applicant sought an injunction to prevent the withdrawal of life support, rescission of the initial death certificate, and a declaration that the Consent and Capacity Board had jurisdiction over such disputes.

Following Ouanounou's natural death, the court considered whether the application was moot.

Citing a recent decision in *McKitty v. Hayani*, which addressed similar issues, the court found the application moot as there was no longer a live controversy and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the academic issues.

The plaintiff, Karen Stirrett, sought damages for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against three defendant doctors following the death of her spouse, David Stirrett, after an angiogram performed as part of the STREAM medical research study.

A jury found Dr. Strauss negligent but that his negligence was not causative of the death.

The court, sitting without a jury for the equitable claim, found that Dr. Strauss, as the principal investigator, owed and breached a fiduciary duty to David Stirrett by failing to disclose critical changes to the study protocol, funding, and participant numbers, which would have influenced David Stirrett's informed consent.

The court held that causation is not a requirement for recovery in breach of fiduciary duty.

Judgment was awarded in favour of the plaintiff against Dr. Strauss, while the actions against Dr. Cheema and Dr. Sheth were dismissed.