C. Paliare

The applicant, a chiropractor previously disciplined for professional misconduct, sought an interim stay of an amended College bylaw that disqualified him from running in an upcoming Council election.

The College had recently amended the bylaw to extend the disqualification period for professional misconduct from three to six years, making it effective immediately.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, using the elevated 'strong likelihood of success' standard because the stay would effectively determine the election outcome.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that the bylaw would be found unreasonable, retrospective, or passed in bad faith on judicial review.

The Ontario College of Trades moved to set aside an order refusing to quash a summons to witness issued by PowerServe to the Chair of the College's Electrician Ratio Review Panel.

PowerServe sought to examine the Chair regarding his prior professional relationship with a union involved in the review, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion and quashed the summons, finding that the proposed areas of inquiry were either irrelevant, amounted to a fishing expedition, or would require the disclosure of communications protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a Hearing Panel's finding of professional misconduct and the revocation of his license.

The appellant had acted for investors in 14 real estate transactions involving a fraudulent scheme to mislead institutional lenders into financing the entire purchase price of homes.

The Divisional Court found the Hearing Panel's conclusion that the appellant knowingly assisted in the fraud to be reasonable, noting his reverse-engineering of Statements of Adjustments.

The court also upheld the penalty of revocation, affirming that absent exceptional circumstances, revocation is the presumptive penalty for knowing participation in mortgage fraud to maintain public confidence in the legal profession.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the applicant employers on an application for judicial review of a labour arbitrator's interim award.

The employers brought a cross-motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the union, and sought a confidentiality order over certain competition documents if they were retained in the record.

The Divisional Court granted the union's motion, striking the employers' affidavit as it improperly attempted to expand the evidentiary record and advance argument.

The court partially granted the cross-motion, striking the parties' submissions before the arbitrator but retaining communications with the arbitrator and the competition documents.

The court dismissed the request for a confidentiality order, finding the employers failed to establish a sufficiently important commercial interest to displace the open court principle.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent's group home.

Although the union filed membership cards for more than 55% of the employees, five employees filed statements of desire opposing the application.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of these statements.

The Board found that the employer had held a meeting expressing opposition to the union, mentioning potential closure of the home, and shortly thereafter sent termination notices to all employees.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions were capable of unduly influencing the employees, rendering the statements of desire involuntary.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted certification.