David Paul Jacobs

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.

The applicant, an RCMP officer on long-term sick leave, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The HPARB had upheld a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to take no further action on her complaint against an RCMP Occupational Health Services Officer.

The applicant alleged the physician arbitrarily changed her medical profile from employable with restrictions to unemployable without examining her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HPARB's conclusion that the physician performed a reasonable review of the medical information and exercised appropriate clinical judgment was reasonable.

The respondent requested an order prohibiting the union from intervening in the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to deny the union's intervention, noting that a union generally has an interest in an application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit.

The request to prohibit intervention was dismissed, with the scope of intervention left to the hearing adjudicator.

Following the successful dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's action against 78 defendants, six groups of defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court considered the complexity of the claims, the plaintiff's mental health, and principles of proportionality and fairness.

The court reduced several of the costs claimed to ensure comparability and fairness, ultimately awarding a total of $71,000 in costs across the successful defendants.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a requirement that he be cautioned in person regarding his advertising practices.

The complaints committee found that the applicant's advertisements for weight loss clinics did not constitute 'the member's medical services' under the regulations, as he had no therapeutic relationship with the patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee's interpretation of its own regulations to be reasonable and declining to address a newly raised Charter challenge due to the lack of an evidentiary record.

A tribunal and one of its members moved to dismiss or strike a civil action arising from the tribunal’s review of a complaint against a physician.

The plaintiff alleged conspiracy, conflict of interest, and negligence in connection with the tribunal’s confirmation of a professional regulator’s decision not to take action against the physician.

The court held the pleadings failed to allege material facts establishing bad faith, which is required to overcome statutory immunity for tribunal members acting in good faith.

The claim was also a collateral attack on the tribunal’s decisions and was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period.

The statement of claim against the moving parties disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The moving lawyer defendants sought to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s expansive civil action alleging conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, Charter breaches, defamation, and other torts arising from criminal proceedings and child protection litigation.

The court held that the statement of claim lacked material facts linking the lawyer defendants to the alleged misconduct and improperly attempted to relitigate criminal convictions and child protection determinations.

Many claims were also barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the pleadings vague, speculative, and abusive, failing to establish recognized causes of action or the elements of torts such as conspiracy, malicious prosecution, defamation, or abuse of public office.

The action against the four lawyer defendants was struck or dismissed without leave to amend.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed an order requiring him to complete a communication skills program following a patient complaint.

The applicant argued he was not given notice that the tone of his response to the complaint would be considered, and that the ordered program was not a specified remediation program under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as the committee was entitled to consider the applicant's response without further notice, and the ordered program was sufficiently specified.

The appellant, a construction worker, was expelled from his union local for violating its dual union policy by maintaining membership in a rival union.

Upon expulsion, his coverage under the union's benefit plan was terminated, despite having a positive balance in his notional 'dollar bank account' used to track employer contributions.

The appellant sought an order permitting him to continue making claims against the benefit plan or a cash payment of his notional balance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant ceased to be a beneficiary of the trust upon his expulsion and had no beneficial interest in the funds.

The court also held that the union officials did not breach their fiduciary duties as trustees by adopting and enforcing the dual union policy, as no conflict of interest existed in this context.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that declared pre-access alcohol and drug testing, implemented in response to Suncor's site access requirements, violated the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in Irving Pulp & Paper.

The court found the arbitrator reasonably concluded there was no evidence of a substance abuse problem at the Sarnia worksite to justify the privacy intrusion of pre-access testing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons' decision to take no action on her complaint against a physician.

The applicant alleged the tribunal failed to address all her allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal was not required to address every allegation and that its decision was reasonable based on the evidence.

The applicant, a former member of the Labourers' Union, sought an order permitting him to make claims against the union's Benefit Trust or a return of his Dollar Bank Balance after being expelled for violating a dual union policy.

He also claimed the trustees breached their fiduciary duties.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant ceased to be a beneficiary upon expulsion, had no right to a distribution of the notional dollar bank account, and that the trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties by adopting or enforcing the dual union policy.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal of her application for registration as a Nurse Practitioner.

The appellant had failed the required examination three times and argued the examination was unfair because it was based on American nursing practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable as the appellant provided no evidence to establish the examination was unfair or that she was personally adversely affected by its content.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a committee's decision to issue a verbal caution regarding his conduct during an independent medical examination.

The applicant argued the committee erred by failing to make credibility findings and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the committee exercises a screening function without jurisdiction to make credibility findings, and that a caution is a remedial measure rather than a disciplinary sanction.

The court found the decision to caution the applicant was reasonable.

The appellant, a medical resident, appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal to issue him a certificate of registration.

The refusal was based on outstanding, unproven criminal charges of sexual assault.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the law and violated the presumption of innocence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable as the regulatory scheme places the onus on the applicant to demonstrate good character, and considering unproven charges in the context of public interest does not violate the presumption of innocence.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and membership in a vocational association because of age.

At the first day of the hearing, prior to any evidence being heard, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the applicant leave to withdraw the application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed the Registration Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario's refusal to annul her third unsuccessful attempt at the Canadian Practical Nurse Registration Examination.

The appellant argued she experienced health concerns during the exam.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the nature, extent, and consequences of her illness to justify annulling the exam attempt.

The applicant chiropractor sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a written caution issued by the College of Chiropractors of Ontario regarding the tone and language of a letter sent to a patient.

The applicant argued the Board failed to address a claim of reasonable apprehension of bias concerning a committee member who had co-authored an academic article critical of the applicant's treatment philosophy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no merit to the bias claim and concluding that the Board's decision to uphold the written caution was reasonable.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal regarding a failure to accommodate her disability related to workplace mould exposure.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural matters.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondent on consent, granted the applicant's union intervenor status, and denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB proceeding.