4 total
Application for judicial review dismissed; interim order restricting anesthesiologist's practice upheld as reasonable.
The applicant anesthesiologist sought judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) that effectively suspended his practice by requiring constant clinical supervision.
The order followed incidents involving patient harm, including a death, and allegations of falsified medical records and inattention.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC's decision reasonable as there was 'some evidence' of probable harm to patients and the committee adequately justified why less restrictive measures were insufficient.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed; compelled evidence under Mareva order remains admissible in coercive civil contempt motion.
The defendants appealed an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility and production of compelled evidence in a civil contempt motion arising from alleged breaches of a Mareva order.
The plaintiffs cross-appealed the motion judge's decision that answers to undertakings and further document production could not be compelled while the contempt motion was outstanding.
The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that evidence compelled prior to the contempt motion was admissible and did not violate sections 7, 11(c), or 13 of the Charter.
However, the court allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in prematurely ruling on the admissibility of future answers to undertakings and in deferring the production motion.
The court held that the obligation to comply with the Mareva order continues despite the contempt motion, and admissibility should be determined when the evidence is tendered, based on whether the contempt motion is predominantly coercive or penal.
The court upheld Ontario's jurisdiction over foreign defendants in an international fraud and conspiracy case.
This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision to assume jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a complex international fraud and conspiracy case.
The respondents (original plaintiffs) alleged that a Toronto resident orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate billions of dollars from Saudi Arabian corporations and dissipate them globally, with the assistance of family members and various corporate entities.
The appellants (foreign defendants) challenged Ontario's jurisdiction, arguing a lack of real and substantial connection.
The motion judge found jurisdiction based on contracts made in Ontario (including a gift deed central to the alleged scheme), property located in Ontario, and the tort of conspiracy being committed in Ontario.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding factual errors or legal errors in applying the Van Breda test for jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.
Application for judicial review dismissed; public board's refusal to rent space was a private contractual decision.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place to deny them the right to rent space for a Hallowe'en-themed event due to alleged harassment of staff.
The Board raised a preliminary issue that the decision was a private contractual matter and not subject to judicial review.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the decision to not enter into a short-term rental agreement was an exercise of private law discretion, not a statutory power of decision or a matter of sufficient public character.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
