Christine Wadsworth

The appellant teacher appealed a finding of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The misconduct arose from the appellant's aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards public health nurses and students during a school immunization clinic, where he expressed opposition to vaccines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee's findings of misconduct and the imposed penalty, which included a one-month suspension and a two-year prohibition from attending school health clinics, were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant physician, found guilty of professional misconduct for inadequate record keeping and sterile technique, brought a motion to extend the time to perfect his appeal until the Court of Appeal released its decision in a separate case involving sexual abuse penalties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pending decision would not affect the appellant's case, as his misconduct did not involve sexual abuse, and the disciplinary committee's reference to the other case was not central to its penalty decision.

The appellant was ordered to perfect his appeal within 30 days.

The plaintiff, IMG Canada Limited, sued General Motors of Canada Limited and MacLaren McCann Canada Inc. for breach of an alleged oral two-year sponsorship agreement and, alternatively, for negligent misrepresentation.

IMG claimed an oral contract was formed on November 3, 2015, for Cadillac's sponsorship of Taste of Toronto 2016 and 2017.

The court found no oral agreement due to a lack of certainty of essential terms (specifically price) and no intention to create a legally binding agreement, as evidenced by ongoing negotiations and the requirement for a formal written contract.

The negligent misrepresentation claim, alleging Momentum failed to communicate Cadillac's concerns, was also dismissed because the plaintiff could not prove damages resulted from the alleged misrepresentation, as it was too late to mitigate losses by the time the misrepresentation occurred.

All claims were dismissed.

The appellant suffered a brain injury resulting in anterograde amnesia and confabulation.

The respondent psychiatrist found the appellant incapable of managing her property under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, a finding confirmed by the Consent and Capacity Board.

The appellant appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion was supported by the evidence despite the appellant's limited assets.

This is an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) decision ordering the substitute decision-maker (SDM) to consent to the withdrawal of life support for her husband.

The appellant, the husband's wife, challenged the CCB's jurisdiction to make a decision binding on her and its finding that cessation of life support was in the patient's best interests.

The court affirmed the CCB's decision, finding its procedural approach reasonable and its determination of the patient's best interests supported by the evidence, including the adequacy of accommodations for the appellant's communication disabilities.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving, assault with intent to resist arrest, and refusal to comply with a breath sample demand, and his sentence.

The appeal raised three grounds: alleged Charter violations concerning excessive police force (ss. 7 and 12) and the right to counsel (s. 10(b)), and an error in convicting for assault resisting arrest.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the police use of force was reasonable in the circumstances, that the appellant failed to diligently assert his right to counsel, and that the elements of assault with intent to resist arrest were proven.

The court clarified the distinction between the burden of proof for Charter motions (balance of probabilities) and for criminal charges (beyond a reasonable doubt), and the limited application of the "Prosper warning" for the right to counsel.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing an adolescent patient in 1979.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, applied a more stringent standard to his evidence, and provided inadequate reasons regarding similar fact evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility assessments were reasonable, there was no unequal scrutiny of evidence, and the Committee clearly explained it did not rely on the similar fact evidence to reach its conclusions.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering it to repay approximately $2.3 million in loans to the deceased's estate.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the action was statute-barred under s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act, and that the trial judge erred in finding the limitation period was restarted by its acknowledgment of the debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, refusing to entertain the new Trustee Act argument and finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's correspondence and partial payments restarted the limitation period.