David Paul Jacobs

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to be added as a responding party to an application for judicial review and for an order sealing a portion of the record.

The underlying application challenged an HPARB decision confirming a college committee's decision to take no further action on a complaint against a chiropractor.

The court granted the motion to add HPARB as a party pursuant to section 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also granted the sealing order to protect the respondent's college history, continuing a prior disclosure order made by HPARB.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) on informed consent.

The order arose from a patient complaint regarding the administration of conscious sedation during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's concerns about the lack of one-on-one communication and the applicant's reliance on staff for informed consent were supported by the record, making the HPARB's confirmation of the decision reasonable.

The applicant, a dentist, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had upheld a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario requiring the applicant to appear for a caution and complete a remediation program regarding record-keeping, informed consent, and case work-up.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused further written submissions after the matter was remitted by the Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decision was reasonable.

The applicant, a Nurse Manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding an order by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses.

The ICRC ordered the applicant to complete a remediation program after a resident signed a 'Do Not Resuscitate' (DNR) form without a proper capacity assessment, despite the applicant having found the resident lacked capacity days earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable as the core issue was the failure to properly assess capacity, not whether the resident actually had capacity at the time.

The respondent Board brought a motion in a judicial review proceeding to add the subject physician as a party respondent, seal third-party medical records inadvertently included in the record, and strike the self-represented applicant's affidavit, application record, and factum.

The court granted the requests to add the physician and seal the records on consent.

The court struck the applicant's affidavit and portions of her application record as they raised irrelevant policy issues and complaints unrelated to the specific decision under review.

The court declined to strike the factum, finding it provided a manageable summary of the applicant's position for the hearing panel.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the College's Complaints Committee.

The Committee had investigated a patient's complaint regarding inappropriate physical contact and, while unable to determine exactly what occurred, required the physician to be cautioned and complete a remedial program regarding boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate for a screening function and the decision was reasonable based on the physician's own admissions about accepting hugs.

The Court also rejected the argument that publishing a summary of the decision on the public register constituted an unauthorized sanction.

The applicant, a physician, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

On preliminary motions, the applicant sought to introduce additional evidence consisting of a summary of the underlying committee decision posted on the College's website.

The Board sought to add the complainant as a party and to seal portions of the record containing the applicant's conduct profile.

The court granted all motions, allowing the additional evidence as context for the judicial review, adding the complainant as a necessary party, and sealing the conduct profile to maintain the integrity of the Board's process.

The applicant, a pharmacy manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to caution him and require an educational program following a serious dispensing error by a pharmacist at his pharmacy.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair, claiming he was improperly held responsible for another's mistake and denied procedural fairness regarding his discipline history and communication issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, noting the applicant's responsibility as designated manager for pharmacy policies and procedures.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) refusing to remove the respondent hospital's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The hospital moved to quash the judicial review application as premature, while the applicant moved to convert the application into an appeal and stay the HPARB proceedings.

The Divisional Court quashed the judicial review application, finding no exceptional circumstances justified interfering with the ongoing administrative process.

The court also refused to convert the application to an appeal, as the HPARB decision was interlocutory, and dismissed the motion for a stay.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing an appeal by the Estate of Gabriel Zimmerman regarding its entitlement to be added as a party to the underlying action.

The court determined the costs payable by the respondents to both the Estate and the defendants for the motion heard in the lower court.

The Estate was awarded its actual partial indemnity costs, and the defendants were also awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis despite not participating in the appeal, as they benefited from the appellate decision.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take no further action regarding his complaint against a physician.

The complaint arose from the physician's requirement that the applicant attend the clinic in person for a prescription renewal rather than renewing it by fax.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Committee's investigation was adequate.

Two shareholders of a holding company that owns a commercial property brought an action against defendants for their full share of annual rental income.

The property manager held back part of the funds based on acknowledgements allegedly signed by the shareholders in 2002, which purported to give a deceased property manager a 25% interest in their entitlements.

The defendants moved to add the estate of the deceased manager as a necessary party.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the estate's claim was statute barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the estate's claim was not statute barred because the defendants never pleaded a limitations defence and had in fact invited the estate to assert its claim.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision that dismissed its application for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had refused to allow the union to amend an incorrect application filing date, finding that the amendment would cause material prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's discretionary decision to relieve from compliance with its rules was reasonable and entitled to deference, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Plaintiffs, co-owners of an income property, successfully opposed a motion by the Defendants to add the Estate of Gabriel Zimmerman as a party to their action against property managers.

This endorsement addresses the Plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs.

The court found substantial indemnity costs appropriate given the Estate was out of time and the motion was a delaying tactic, and the Plaintiffs' offer to settle was reasonable.

The court awarded joint and several costs of $45,000.00 against the Defendants and the Estate, with the Estate's liability limited to $36,982.50.

The court rejected the Defendants' argument to pay costs from the disputed funds, stating it would penalize the Plaintiffs for winning.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a written caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution was issued because the applicant's clinic used patient and staff testimonials in its advertising, contrary to the regulations under the Medicine Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate and the interpretation of the regulation prohibiting testimonials was reasonable.

The defendants sought leave to add the Estate of Gabriel Zimmerman as a party, direct payment of withheld rental income into court, and be released from liability.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the estate's claim was statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the estate's claim was subject to the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, which had expired, and that the Trustee Act did not apply to extend the period.

The court also declined to apply the Doctrine of Special Circumstances, noting the claim had been known for years without compelling explanation for inaction.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a College finding that he breached the Advertising Regulation.

The applicant was listed as the 'Associate Medical Director' of a clinic that offered a Groupon deal for Botox, though he only provided retinal surgery and was unaware of the ad.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it reasonable for the Board to conclude that by allowing his name to be associated with the clinic in a directorial capacity, he permitted himself to be associated with the advertising.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting bargaining rights to a competing union.

The applicant argued that a voluntary recognition agreement between the employer and the competing union constituted unlawful employer support under s. 53 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusion that the agreement was a bona fide settlement of an outstanding application, rather than unlawful support, was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicants, trustees of multi-employer pension plans, sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of confidential actuarial valuation reports to a representative of a rival union.

The applicants argued that disclosure would cause harm during the construction industry's 'raiding season'.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and set aside the commissioner's order, finding that the commissioner applied an overly burdensome standard of proof and an overly stringent test for causation of harm under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court held that the applicants only needed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm, which was met given the highly competitive context of union raiding.

The applicants brought two motions in relation to their application for judicial review of a decision by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario Discipline Committee.

The first motion sought to compel the Committee to include a full transcript of the oral evidence in the record of proceedings.

The second motion sought an interim stay of the discipline proceedings pending the judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions, finding that the relevant statutes do not oblige the Committee to order and pay for a transcript if one has not been prepared, and that the application for judicial review was premature as the administrative proceedings had not yet concluded.