Corey Willard

The College alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a physician, through sexual harassment and boundary violations involving two younger female colleagues over whom he held professional and academic power.

The registrant did not contest the allegations.

The Tribunal found professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, and $6,000 in costs.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the Rules of Civil Procedure that require a litigation guardian to be represented by a lawyer.

The plaintiff sought to act as litigation guardian for her 16-year-old daughter but was unable to retain counsel.

The court held that to avoid infringing section 15 of the Charter, the Rules must be interpreted to allow a mature minor the opportunity to establish their capacity to self-represent.

The court ordered the plaintiff to file evidence of her daughter's capacity and intentions, failing which she must seek representation from the Office of the Children's Lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the plaintiff's ten-year medical negligence action and sought their costs.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented for portions of the litigation, caused significant delays and failed to accept multiple offers to settle.

The defendants sought costs in amounts lower than partial indemnity, recognizing the plaintiff's difficult financial circumstances.

The court further reduced the requested amounts, ordering the plaintiff to pay a total of $270,000 in costs to the defendants.

The court considered a motion by the Attorney General of Canada to strike the plaintiff’s action, which alleged negligence in the administration of pilot medical certification.

The plaintiff, a commercial pilot, had his medical certificate refused due to a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, but was later found fit and granted an unrestricted certificate after a successful appeal.

The court found that the regulatory regime’s purpose is public safety, not the protection of individual economic interests, and that no private law duty of care is owed by Transport Canada to pilots in these circumstances.

The action was struck in its entirety.

The court considered two motions for summary judgment in a civil action brought by William Stoddart, a former inmate, against Dr. Diana Silver Wyatt and various Crown defendants.

Stoddart alleged assault and professional negligence against Dr. Wyatt, and negligence, assault, and breach of Charter rights against the Crown defendants, arising from the discontinuation of his prescription for gabapentin following a change in the Correctional Service of Canada’s drug formulary.

The court found that the only evidence on the standard of care was from the defendants, and Stoddart failed to provide any expert evidence in support of his claims.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment, dismissing all of Stoddart’s claims.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice and informed consent action.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented for most of the litigation, failed to serve any expert medical report to support her claims, despite repeated requests from the defendant's counsel and court orders.

The court found that expert evidence was required for both the negligence and informed consent claims, and that the case did not fall within the "clearest of cases" exception.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action.

The plaintiff sued two physicians for medical malpractice, alleging they negligently failed to diagnose and treat him for Lyme disease following a suspected tick bite in April 2010.

The emergency room physician diagnosed cellulitis and prescribed antibiotics, while the family physician later treated the plaintiff for various ongoing symptoms but did not diagnose Lyme disease.

The court found that neither physician breached the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was bitten by a tick or that he actually contracted Lyme disease.

The action was dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a school principal who wore a racialized student's shaved hair as a wig on two occasions, including as part of a Halloween costume.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct, admitting his actions demonstrated a lack of cultural sensitivity and respect.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding the member's conduct violated ethical standards and his obligations as a positive role model under the Education Act.

The member was reprimanded and his teaching certificate was suspended for three months.

The Committee noted the member had already completed over 125 hours of voluntary education on racism and diversity, satisfying the coursework condition of the penalty.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's order requiring them to post $20,000 as security for costs.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision.

The Associate Judge correctly applied the two-step test for security for costs under Rule 56.01, concluding there was good reason to believe the action was frivolous and vexatious and that the lead appellant lacked sufficient assets to cover a costs order.

The appellate court also rejected the appellants' attempt to introduce new evidence on appeal.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against two members.

The allegations stemmed from the same incident.

The College sought the withdrawal because both members had entered into Undertakings, Agreements and Acknowledgments requiring them to complete a course on conducting investigations in school settings following allegations of harassment.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal was reasonable, protected the public interest, and avoided lengthy and difficult contested hearings.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against two members, Lucien Chaput and Gilles Auger.

The members had each entered into an Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgment requiring them to complete a course on conducting investigations in school settings following allegations of harassment.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the allegations was reasonable and protected the public interest given the members' voluntary undertakings.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Joel Breault, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Croll J. dated September 24, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 for the Landry plaintiffs and $2,500 for the Davies defendants, payable by the moving parties.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to compel two police services to produce unredacted records relating to their investigations of incidents involving students at a school where the members were principal and vice-principal.

The members and the police services either consented or did not oppose the motion.

Applying the first stage of the O'Connor test, the Discipline Committee found the records were likely relevant and ordered the police services to produce them to the Panel for review, subject to certain redactions and Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to compel the production of third-party records from two police services regarding an incident involving students at a school where the members were principal and vice-principal.

The Discipline Committee applied the first stage of the O'Connor test and found that the records were likely relevant.

The Committee ordered the police services to produce the unredacted records to the Panel for review, after which the Panel will determine whether they should be produced to the parties.

The defendants brought a motion seeking costs thrown away on a substantial indemnity basis for a late trial adjournment and an order suspending pre-judgment interest.

The trial was adjourned due to the plaintiff's counsel's failure to comply with timetable orders, including providing proper witness statements and an ever-changing witness list, which rendered the original four-week trial estimate unrealistic.

The court found the plaintiff and his counsel responsible for the adjournment, awarded the defendants $100,000 in costs thrown away on a partial indemnity basis, and suspended pre-judgment interest from the original trial date until the new trial date.

The appellants, a paralegal and her business, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay $20,000 to the respondents.

The dispute arose over legal fees retained from a settlement.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge demonstrated bias, made unsupported credibility findings, and erred in admitting and excluding certain evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The court held that the trial judge's interventions were appropriate, his credibility findings were entitled to deference, and he properly exercised his discretion regarding the admissibility of evidence.

The appellants appealed an order approving a settlement agreement between them and the respondent school under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants argued that the dispute resolution mechanism proposed by the school did not match what was agreed upon and that the father lacked mental capacity when consenting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error by the motion judge, as there was no evidence of incapacity and the agreement was in the minor's best interests.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's property claim, the respondent parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the applicant's conduct unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and complicated a simple contractual dispute.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the settlement offers did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court reduced the requested amounts due to duplication of effort, excessive use of senior counsel, and unreasonable refusal of a settlement offer by one respondent, awarding total costs of $47,500 across the three respondents.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement agreement, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs due to the bad faith conduct of the self-represented plaintiff, who had repudiated the settlement after receiving some of its benefits.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct caused unnecessary delays and costs.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 in costs to the defendants and $500 to his former counsel.

The applicants, Andrew Pierre Makoundi (a minor represented by his litigation guardian Bruno Makoundi) and Bruno Makoundi, brought a motion to annul a settlement agreement reached in December 2013.

The respondents, Lycée Claudel and its employees, opposed the annulment and sought court approval (homologation) of the settlement and dismissal of the applicants' actions.

The court dismissed the applicants' motion to annul, finding no evidence of mental incapacity, no applicability of the Charter to the private institution, and that allegations of undue influence were directed at former counsel.

The court granted the respondents' request to homologate the settlement, exercising its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to dispense with certain procedural requirements (Rule 7.08 affidavits) in the interest of justice, given the applicants' conduct.

The court ordered the payment of $5,000 to the applicants' former counsel as per the settlement.