Emily Lawrence

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

This endorsement grants a brief adjournment in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities, following ongoing discussions between the applicants and stakeholders.

The court extends the stay of proceedings, increases the Directors’ Charge, amends the relative priorities of charges, and approves the engagement of Reflect Advisors, LLC as financial advisor.

The court finds the requested relief appropriate, unopposed, and supported by the Monitor, and orders the requested amendments to the Initial Order.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision quashing her application for judicial review against the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP).

The applicant sought survivor benefits following the death of a plan member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, upholding the finding that HOOPP is a private pension plan not exercising a statutory power or state authority, and therefore its decisions are not subject to judicial review.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision not to apply issue estoppel or in the costs award.

The moving party, HOOPP, brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review brought by the responding party.

The responding party sought survivor benefits from HOOPP following the death of her niece, but HOOPP determined the benefits were payable to the deceased's common law spouse.

The responding party sought judicial review of this decision.

HOOPP argued the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because HOOPP is a private pension plan, not a public body, and its decisions are not subject to public law remedies.

The court agreed, finding that HOOPP was not exercising a statutory power and its decisions were not of a public character.

The motion to quash was granted.

The applicant, a medical student, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Academic Appeals Committee upholding findings of professionalism lapses.

The applicant argued that the initial process before the Board of Examiners was procedurally unfair due to insufficient notice and undisclosed allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the initial process was flawed, the subsequent appeals before the Faculty of Medicine Appeals Committee and the Academic Appeals Committee were conducted as de novo hearings that cured any procedural defects.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university academic appeal committee decision.

In support of his application, he filed an affidavit containing evidence of events that occurred after the original board decision.

The university brought a motion to strike those portions of the affidavit.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, applying the Keeprite principle that judicial review is based on the record before the decision-maker, and finding that the applicant had previously consented to excluding this evidence during the internal appeal processes.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged that a defendant falsely represented his marital status to a pension plan, leading to him receiving benefits to which he was not entitled.

The court found the action constituted an abusive collateral attack on the pension plan's determination, which was already subject to judicial review by the plaintiff.

Additionally, the plaintiff's claim for children's documents lacked a legal basis.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, failed her Assessment Verification Period in the university's emergency medicine residency program.

She brought a motion for an interim injunction to prevent the university from reporting her failure to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pending her internal appeal and judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no irreparable harm and concluding that the balance of convenience favoured the university, which has a statutory obligation to report such outcomes to the College.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the College of Nurses' refusal to annul her first unsuccessful attempt at the Canadian Registered Nurse Examination.

The appellant argued that her mental and emotional state, caused by her mother's death and medication side effects, prevented her from fully appreciating her inability to write the exam.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant could and should have assessed her circumstances before the examination was reasonable.

The applicant, a medical school graduate, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Examiners requiring him to undergo remediation for a lapse in professionalism.

The applicant had initiated an internal appeal but abandoned it, choosing instead to complete the remediation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust his internal appeal remedies and demonstrated no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the administrative process.

The Applicants, under CCAA protection, brought a motion seeking an order to authorize and approve the Revised Fourth DIP Amendment.

The motion was opposed by the USW and GIP.

The court granted the motion, finding that the DIP solicitation process was competitive, robust, and fair, and that the Revised Fourth DIP Amendment was the best available proposal.

The amendment addressed previous concerns by providing a maturity date past the winter build period, a sufficient commitment amount, and minimal conditions on covenants.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the Academic Appeals Committee upholding his dismissal from the anesthesia residency program.

He argued that deviations from his remediation plan, including timeline errors and lack of baseline testing, made the process manifestly unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeals Committee's conclusion that the deviations were not significant enough to invalidate the remediation process was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a discipline panel's decision regarding a nurse who was found guilty of professional misconduct following criminal convictions for child pornography offences.

The nurse had resigned prior to the hearing, and the panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction to revoke his certificate of registration because it was 'non-existent'.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the panel's interpretation unreasonable and contrary to the broad, purposive intent of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Court held that the College retains continuing jurisdiction to impose sanctions, including revocation, on former members to protect the public.

The Court set aside the panel's penalty and ordered the revocation of the respondent's certificate.

The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The revocation was based on the appellant's criminal conviction for sexual assault against an employee and his failure to disclose his interest in a property management business on his renewal applications for over a decade.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's conclusions regarding the appellant's character and the necessity of revocation to protect the public were reasonable.

The Ontario Energy Board appealed a decision that had required it to apply a mandatory prudence framework when assessing Ontario Power Generation compensation costs in rate-setting.

The majority held tribunal participation in defending its own decision was proper in this regulatory context and found no impermissible bootstrapping on appeal.

The Court held the governing statute did not require a single prudence methodology and permitted the Board to use a mixed approach for costs that were partly committed and partly subject to managerial discretion.

The Board’s disallowance of $145 million in compensation costs was found reasonable, and its original decision was reinstated.

The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent for the storage of vaccines in a temperature-controlled warehouse.

The contract required the appellant to maintain all-risk property insurance.

After the cooling system malfunctioned and destroyed the vaccines, the appellant's insurer brought a subrogated action against the respondent and other contractors involved in the warehouse's operations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing the action, finding that the insurance covenant barred the claim against the respondent (except for a $100,000 negligence carve-out) and that the other contractors were third-party beneficiaries of this protection.

The applicant, a registered nurse, was found unconscious at work after using narcotics misappropriated from the hospital.

He admitted to a drug addiction.

The College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordered him to undergo an independent medical examination.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that a report from his treating addiction specialist was sufficient and that the order violated his Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the ICRC's statutory requirement to find 'reasonable and probable grounds' before ordering an examination adequately balances Charter values, and that a treating physician's report does not substitute for an independent medical examination.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board affirming the denial of her registration as a Registered Practical Nurse.

The appellant had failed the non-exemptible licensing examination three times, despite receiving accommodations for reading difficulties on her second and third attempts.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no evidence of testing improprieties or extraordinary circumstances to justify annulling the examinations.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed the College of Nurses' refusal to issue her a certificate of registration.

The appellant had failed the mandatory registration examination four times and requested to review her examination questions and answers, which the College refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable as there is no discretion to register an applicant who has not passed the examination, and the College had legitimate reasons for refusing the review request.