Colin Bruce Johnston

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee requiring her to attend in person to be cautioned regarding unprofessional communications.

The applicant had made inappropriate comments in the workplace while experiencing emotional distress related to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the caution was a remedial measure within the Committee's jurisdiction and was reasonable given the professional standards expected of physicians.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the decision violated her equality rights under the Charter, as she failed to establish that the caution had an adverse impact on her or on people with mental health disabilities generally.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming the renewal of a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and a finding of incapacity to make decisions about his antipsychotic medications.

The court upheld the Board's finding of incapacity and the validity of the CTO, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the appellant's inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of discontinuing medication.

However, the court found an error in the Community Treatment Plan (CTP) by not accounting for COVID-19 public health restrictions.

The CTP was amended to allow for flexible meeting formats (videoconference, teleconference, or in-person) at the discretion of the respondent physician, considering public health and the appellant's needs.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision granting partial summary judgment against them based on a 2010 personal guarantee.

The Master had found the guarantee to be a continuing guarantee covering all present and future indebtedness of the corporate borrower.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Master erred in law by failing to consider the surrounding circumstances, including a contemporaneous contract and promissory note, and by failing to apply the contra proferentem rule.

The Court interpreted the guarantee as limited to the initial $50,000 loan, which had already been repaid according to the rule in Clayton's case.

The appeal was allowed and the claim based on the 2010 guarantee was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that rescinded the respondent's involuntary psychiatric admission.

The respondent had revoked his power of attorney while involuntarily detained, making his estranged wife his substitute decision maker instead of his mother.

The physician, believing the respondent lacked capacity to revoke the power of attorney, relied on the mother's consent to continue the detention.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to determine capacity to revoke a power of attorney and that the physician could not unilaterally disregard the revocation without a formal assessment under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was correct and that the physician should have sought the wife's consent or brought a Form G application if she refused.

The applicant physician brought an appeal and an application for judicial review challenging an interlocutory decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had ruled it had jurisdiction to hear allegations regarding patients not specifically named in the Notice of Hearing.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for judicial review for prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances to intervene in the ongoing disciplinary process, as the Committee reasonably concluded it had jurisdiction.

The Court also quashed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Health Professions Procedural Code to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Health Professions Appeal Review Board (HPARB) that prevented him from practicing medicine.

HPARB consented to the extension, but the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) opposed it.

The court applied the test for extending time, noting the applicant's arguable case on the merits and the broader principle that an extension should be granted if the justice of the case requires it.

Considering the applicant's prior self-represented status, lack of prejudice to the CPSO, and the severe impact on his livelihood, the court granted the extension and awarded costs to the applicant.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $3.8 million for breach of a real estate joint venture agreement.

The appellant argued the respondent was disentitled to the funds for trading in real estate without a license and sought disgorgement of a commission.

The respondent cross-appealed for punitive damages and a higher rate of prejudgment interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the respondent was exempt from licensing requirements as it was dealing with its own interest, the commission was properly disclosed, and the appellant's conduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required for punitive damages.