Donald Posluns

The appellants appealed a decision finding they did not have a substantial interest in a property.

The Court of Appeal held that even considering the appellants' $130,000 equity in the property, they could not show the requisite substantial interest.

Combined with the absence of persuasive evidence of alternative funding, the application judge correctly concluded there were no special circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000.

The appellants appealed a judgment finding that the respondent acquired ownership of disputed land through adverse possession.

The parties' predecessors in title had severed a property in 1960 and mistakenly believed the boundary divided a pond equally, contrary to the registered metes and bounds description.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the test of inconsistent use does not apply to adverse possession claims based on mutual mistake.

The court upheld the finding of adverse possession but modified the order to grant an easement rather than a conveyance for a specific portion of the land.

The appellant psychiatrist appealed a finding of incompetence and the subsequent penalty imposed by the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The committee found the appellant incompetent due to severe deficiencies in record keeping and poor judgment in treating complex psychiatric patients.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of incompetence, noting the committee's specialized expertise and the cumulative effect of the appellant's conduct.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding penalty, finding the 30-month suspension and strict practice restrictions excessive.

The Court substituted a less restrictive penalty involving video monitoring, a full-time secretary, and practice supervision.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pending his appeal.

The Committee had found him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, imposing a 30-month suspension and practice restrictions.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, finding a serious issue regarding the proportionality of the penalty, irreparable harm due to the ongoing suspension and professional damage, and that the balance of convenience favoured a conditional stay.

The stay was granted on the same terms, conditions, and limitations that the Discipline Committee had ordered for his return to practice.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which prohibited him from submitting accounts to OHIP for three years after he defrauded the public.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the College had jurisdiction to impose the billing prohibition under s. 51(2)(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Court held that the penalty was reasonable and entitled to deference, and rejected the argument that the prohibition was equivalent to an additional three-year suspension.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons appealed an order granting a physician a stay of his licence revocation pending his appeal of a finding of incompetence.

The College argued that s. 71 of the Health Professions Procedural Code ousted the court's jurisdiction to grant a stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 71 merely eliminates the automatic stay that would otherwise apply under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, but does not remove the court's inherent and statutory jurisdiction to grant a stay on application where appropriate.