Denise M. Cooney

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for posting a client's personal health information and making inappropriate and threatening comments towards the client's family members on a public Facebook page.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by breaching confidentiality and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration, including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent nurse, who was also registered as a massage therapist.

The College of Massage Therapists of Ontario had previously found the respondent committed professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a client.

The respondent failed to report these proceedings and findings to the College of Nurses.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent committed professional misconduct by virtue of the other regulator's findings and by failing to report them.

The respondent's Certificate of Registration was immediately revoked.

The appellants sought an extension of time to appeal a decision by Sosna J. dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment in a mortgage action.

The respondent bank had obtained a default judgment and a writ of possession.

The appellants' appeal to the Court of Appeal was well out of time.

Although the court found that the appellants intended to appeal within the appeal period and the delay was not long, the motion was dismissed on the merits.

The appellants had not paid the mortgage in months and were merely seeking to delay execution of the default judgment through the appeal process.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain the boundaries of the therapeutic nurse-client relationship.

The member accepted a $50,000 gift and two $10,000 loans from an elderly, vulnerable client, and solicited an additional $100,000 loan.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct, characterizing the conduct as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's certificate of registration and a reprimand.

The Ombudsman of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that held neither the Election Compliance Audit Committee nor the Property Standards Committee of the City of Hamilton constituted "local boards" within the meaning of section 14.1 of the Ombudsman Act.

The Ombudsman sought to investigate whether these committees complied with the public meeting requirement under section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle to conclude that the general language in the definition of "local board" does not extend to investigative/adjudicative bodies that do not carry on the day-to-day operations of the municipality.

Consequently, the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to investigate these committees' compliance with open meeting requirements.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellant's action.

The respondents were entirely successful on appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

West Face Capital Inc. sought $250,000 in costs while Brandon Moyse sought $149,905.18.

The appellant argued for reduced costs amounts.

The Court of Appeal awarded West Face $200,000 and Moyse $100,000, both inclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the respondents' complete success, the nature of the appeal involving a large record and detailed factual re-litigation, and costs thrown away due to an unnecessary adjournment.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by accessing the electronic medical records of approximately 63 clients without consent or authorization between 2010 and 2015.

The unauthorized accesses included records of family members, co-workers, and friends.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member was ordered to receive an oral reprimand, serve a four-month suspension, and complete remedial terms and conditions, including employer notification for 12 months.

Appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellant's action for misuse of confidential information and spoliation.

The appellant alleged that the respondent West Face Capital Inc. improperly obtained and used confidential information about the appellant's bid to acquire WIND Mobile Inc., allegedly obtained from a former employee who moved to West Face.

The trial judge dismissed all claims, finding that the appellant failed to prove that confidential information was provided to West Face or that any such information was used in West Face's successful competing bid.

The trial judge also found that the appellant's choice to terminate negotiations due to a break fee demand, rather than West Face's competing bid, caused the failure of the appellant's acquisition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment and dismissed the appeal, as well as the application for leave to appeal the costs orders.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, was charged and convicted of impaired driving.

She failed to report the charges and the subsequent conviction to the College of Nurses of Ontario.

Furthermore, she provided false and misleading information on her registration applications by denying any ongoing proceedings or convictions.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration, including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

Appeal of a Divisional Court decision certifying a class proceeding brought by a former client against a personal injury law firm for alleged violations of the Solicitors Act relating to contingency fee agreements.

The applicant alleged the firm violated section 28.1(8) by including costs in its fees without court approval, charged interest contrary to section 33, and breached fiduciary duties and contracts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the firm's appeal and allowed the applicant's cross-appeal in part, upholding certification of the class proceeding with 18 of 19 common issues (deleting one issue regarding whether the firm actually took amounts for costs) and certifying two additional common issues regarding breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages.

Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc. (BTC) sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx (MTX) from terminating a $770 million contract for light rail vehicles (LRVs) due to alleged material default, pending the completion of a mandatory dispute resolution process.

BTC also sought to remove the Engineer, Jeffrey Rankin, for alleged partiality.

The court found that the contract's dispute resolution process applied to MTX's right to terminate for material default.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court determined there was a serious issue to be tried, BTC would suffer irreparable harm (loss of reputation, future business, supply chain disruption, and employee expertise), and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, prohibiting MTX from terminating the contract until the Dispute Review Board (DRB) ruled on the default, and ordered the injunction to be nunc pro tunc to stay cure periods.

The issue of the Engineer's impartiality was referred to the DRB.

The moving parties, Antonio Ferrara (in trust) and Astoria Homes Inc., sought to strike a third-party claim brought by the Marcheses against Antonio Ferrara in his personal capacity.

The third-party claim was issued without consent or leave of the court, contrary to Rule 29.02.

The court found that while an irregularity occurred, leave would have been granted had it been sought, as no prejudice to the plaintiffs was demonstrated.

Furthermore, the irregularity was cured by the moving parties taking fresh steps in the litigation after becoming aware of the third-party claim.

The application to strike was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal and motion for leave to appeal under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal and the motion for leave to appeal at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the appellant union to the respondent.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the main action.

West Face Capital Inc. was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $1,239,965 due to the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of soliciting and misusing confidential information, which impugned West Face's integrity and honesty.

Brandon Moyse was awarded partial indemnity costs of $339,500.18, despite also facing integrity-damaging allegations, because he had destroyed evidence at the outset of the litigation, albeit without intent to destroy relevant evidence.

The court found the plaintiff's allegations against West Face and Moyse to be serious and unsubstantiated, justifying higher costs for West Face, while Moyse's conduct warranted a reduction to partial indemnity.

The appellant union appealed a decision finding that the CCAA judge had no jurisdiction to apply the American doctrine of equitable subordination to subordinate the claims of the respondent parent company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the CCAA does not provide express or implied authority to apply equitable subordination, and that the doctrine does not fall within the scheme of the statute, which focuses on the implementation of a plan of arrangement or compromise rather than legislating a scheme of priorities.

The plaintiff, Catalyst Capital Group Inc., brought an action against Brandon Moyse and West Face Capital Inc. for alleged misuse of confidential information regarding WIND Mobile Inc. and spoliation of documents.

Catalyst claimed Moyse, a former analyst, provided confidential information to West Face, which West Face then used to acquire an interest in WIND.

The court assessed the evidence, including witness credibility, and found no direct evidence of information transfer.

The court also examined the elements of breach of confidence and spoliation.

The action was dismissed in its entirety, with the defendants entitled to costs.

The court heard two motions: the defendants sought further production of documents, and the plaintiffs sought an order for the defendants to attend examinations for discovery.

The court granted some of the defendants' production requests, ordering the plaintiffs to produce unredacted financial statements and to request files from their auditors (PWC) and an accounting firm (HLB).

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for discovery attendance, finding that the defendants had acted reasonably in not attending previously scheduled examinations due to the plaintiffs' incomplete production.

The court emphasized the relevance and proportionality rules for production, stating that if a document contains relevant information, it must be disclosed in its entirety without redaction.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against her former lawyer and his firm, alleging they took unauthorized fees, failed to obtain required court approval, and charged illegal interest rates on disbursements under invalid contingency fee agreements.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the common issue and preferable procedure criteria were not met.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified the class proceeding, finding the motion judge erred in his interpretation of the Solicitors Act and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to address the common issues.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its motion for a declaration that the defendant was in contempt of court for failing to preserve electronic records.

The defendant moved to quash the appeal to the Court of Appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, holding that an order dismissing a contempt motion is interlocutory because the merits of the case remain to be determined, and therefore the appeal lies to the Divisional Court with leave.