4 total
Immunities barred compelled production, and Garofoli relevance threshold was not met.
In a criminal bribery prosecution, the appellant international financial organization challenged a third party production order and subpoenas issued in support of a Garofoli wiretap challenge.
The Court held that archival and personnel immunities under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act applied to records and investigators of the organization’s integrity unit, and no waiver was established.
The Court further held that, in the Garofoli context, third party production requires a reasonable likelihood of probative value to the affiant-knowledge issues, not broad relevance to trial truth.
Because that threshold was not met, the production order was set aside.
Judicial review of HRTO decision declaring applicant a vexatious litigant dismissed as reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed her request to add the University of Windsor as a party to her complaint against the Law Society, dismissed her complaint against the Law Society, and declared her a vexatious litigant regarding her attempts to pursue allegations against the University over her official transcript.
The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found that the HRTO had ample authority to control its processes and prevent abuse.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review dismissed; human rights complaint barred by concurrent civil action under s. 34(11).
The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her complaint of discrimination against a university.
The adjudicator had dismissed the complaint under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had an outstanding civil action against the university regarding the same essential factual content—the inclusion of a failed academic year on her official transcript.
The Divisional Court found the adjudicator's interpretation of s. 34(11) to be reasonable, confirming that the provision requires an applicant to choose between the Tribunal and a concurrent civil action at the time the application is filed.
Physician's practice restriction quashed due to College's failure to afford procedural fairness during peer review process.
The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting his practice to surgical assisting for six months.
The restriction followed a peer review and a Physician Review Program (PREP) assessment.
The Divisional Court found that the College breached procedural fairness by failing to refer a second peer assessment to a Review Panel, providing selective information to the PREP director, and refusing to disclose the PREP test and video recordings to the applicant.
The decision imposing conditions on the applicant's certificate of registration was quashed.
