David E. Leonard

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers finding him guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student.

The appellant argued that the Panel disregarded evidence, failed to resolve inconsistencies, and improperly drew an adverse inference from his refusal to answer questions during the investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Panel's findings of fact and credibility were entitled to considerable deference and were reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct.

The appellant argued that the Committee improperly reversed the onus of proof and applied a different standard in scrutinizing the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee correctly articulated the law respecting burden of proof and credibility, and reasonably concluded there was sufficient evidence to establish professional misconduct.

The applicants, two physicians, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board to proceed with a review of a Complaints Committee decision regarding their conduct, despite the complainants having withdrawn their requests for review against the applicants.

The Board argued it retained jurisdiction to review all parties named in a multiple-member decision until the matter was completely withdrawn.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's interpretation of its jurisdiction under the Health Professions Procedural Code was unreasonable, as the statute does not confer discretionary jurisdiction to review a decision where no request is maintained.

The application was allowed and the Board's decision to proceed with the review was quashed.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Fitness to Practise Committee revoking his teaching certificate due to incapacity.

The Committee relied on a provisional psychiatric diagnosis of delusional disorder based on a document review, as the appellant refused to attend a psychiatric assessment or the final days of his hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was admissible and the Committee's decision was reasonable.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant waived his right to complain by choosing not to attend the hearing.

The applicant, a Black teacher, filed human rights complaints against his school board, his union (OSSTF), and the Ontario College of Teachers, alleging racial discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents OSSTF and the College requested the dismissal of the applications against them.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations against the school board and OSSTF for falling outside the one-year limitation period, finding the applicant's bald assertion of fear of reprisal insufficient to establish good faith for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applications against OSSTF and the College entirely, finding that their communications regarding the applicant's representation did not amount to a breach of the Code.

The application against the school board was permitted to continue regarding the remaining timely allegations.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of using profane language, throwing chalk at a student, hitting a student with a meter stick, making inappropriate comments to students and colleagues, and making false threats.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered to be reprimanded, complete an anger management course, and face a conditional three-month suspension.

The Committee also ordered publication of the decision with the member's name.

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to quash a summons to examine a city councillor.

The underlying applications challenged a municipal by-law removing a licensing exemption for airport taxis, alleging bad faith.

The City argued that the intention of a legislative body cannot be established through the examination of a single councillor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision that the councillor's statements had an institutional quality that might reflect the intention of City Council.

The applicant, a vice principal, sought judicial review of a decision by the Investigations Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers not to refer his complaint against a principal to the Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing.

As a mere complainant under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, he had no special or private interest in the decision beyond that of any member of the public.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the notice of hearing against the member.

Independent legal counsel confirmed the panel's jurisdiction to dispose of the proceeding without a hearing on consent of the parties under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The discipline committee granted the motion on consent, finding that the withdrawal of the notice of hearing was reasonable and protected the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member set out in a Notice of Hearing.

With the consent of the parties and pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee authorized the withdrawal, finding it reasonable and in the public interest.

The Bank of Nova Scotia brought a motion to quash the appellant's Notice of Appeal on the basis that it was filed approximately five months late.

The appellant brought a cross-motion seeking an extension of time to serve a fresh Notice of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash and dismissed the cross-motion, finding that the appellant had been notified of the time limit, the appeal lacked merit, and the interests of justice did not warrant an extension of time.

The appellant, a former teacher, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers finding him guilty of professional misconduct for writing offensive letters in 1989.

He argued the College lacked jurisdiction over conduct occurring before its creation and that the delay in processing the complaint amounted to an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the College had jurisdiction to protect the public interest and that the delay, while inexcusable, did not impair the fairness of the hearing or cause significant prejudice.

The appellant sought to raise a Charter issue on appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The appellant had failed to serve a Notice of Constitutional Question before the Discipline Committee, which refused to hear the issue.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the Charter issue for the first time on appeal, finding that the appellant was aware of the notice requirement and that the Attorney General would be prejudiced by the lack of an evidentiary record.

The Ontario College of Teachers appealed a penalty decision of its Discipline Committee regarding a teacher found guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee had imposed a one-year suspension, with seven months running concurrently with a prior employer suspension, and the remaining five months suspended on conditions.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Committee's decision not to revoke the teacher's certificate was reasonable.

The Court dismissed the appeal but varied the wording of the penalty to clarify the five-month conditional suspension.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent teacher.

The appellant was terminated from her employment of 15.5 years while dealing with medical issues.

The trial judge found the employer acted in bad faith and initially awarded 12 months' notice, which she later increased to 16 months after being informed of a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The appellant appealed the notice period and the dismissal of her claim for aggravated and punitive damages.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in increasing the notice period after learning of the settlement offer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the 16-month notice period was within a reasonable range and that a trial judge has broad discretion to alter a judgment before it is formally entered.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff doctor $200,000 in general damages for defamation arising from a television broadcast.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the dismissal of his claim for aggravated damages.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's liability findings or assessment of general damages.

However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the plaintiff was attacked in his profession and defamed using his own distorted words, warranting an award of $150,000 in aggravated damages.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff physician $200,000 in general damages for defamation arising from an investigative television broadcast.

The broadcast suggested the plaintiff knowingly prescribed dangerous heart medication and was dishonest.

The trial judge found the broadcast defamatory, rejected defenses of qualified privilege and fair comment, and found malice.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's liability or general damages assessment.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, awarding $150,000 in exemplary damages because the defendants distorted the plaintiff's words and maintained their position through the appeal despite the finding of malice.

The appellant bank appealed a decision ordering a court-appointed receiver to pay municipal realty taxes to the respondent municipality in priority to the bank's secured claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 382 of the Municipal Act, municipal realty taxes have priority over all other claims except the Crown.

The Court also held that a court-appointed receiver is a 'trustee' within the meaning of section 400(11) of the Act, giving the municipality priority over the proceeds of personal property realized by the receiver.