Erica Richler

The College of Massage Therapists of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision concerning a discipline committee order.

The appeal became moot when the respondent accepted the licence revocation.

The Court of Appeal declined to hear the appeal on its merits to set a judicial precedent, citing the absence of an adversarial context and the inappropriate use of judicial resources for an issue without practical consequences for both parties.

By consent, the Court reinstated the original order of the Discipline Committee.

The appellant, a dental hygienist, appealed the mandatory revocation of his registration for professional misconduct (sexual abuse of a patient, his eventual spouse).

The appeal challenged the Court of Appeal's prior decisions in Leering and Mussani, arguing that the "zero-tolerance" policy and mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code infringed sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that sexual abuse is established by the concurrence of a health professional-patient relationship and a sexual relationship, and that mandatory revocation does not violate Charter rights, as economic interests are not protected by sections 7 or 12, and the penalty is not cruel or unusual.

The court also clarified the narrow scope of the spousal exception.

The plaintiff, Stuart Weinstein, sued multiple government entities and organizations after failing to obtain a General Condominium Manager license following a training program funded by the Second Career Strategy.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being frivolous/vexatious, and also sought to quash summonses issued by the plaintiff.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts for his claims (breach of contract, negligence, intentional interference with economic relations, malfeasance in public office, breach of consumer protection laws) and that many allegations were an abuse of process.

The summonses were quashed as irrelevant and an abuse of process.

Leave to amend the claim was denied.

The defendants brought a joint motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for failing to plead material facts to support the alleged causes of action, including breach of contract, negligence, public malfeasance, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, also brought a cross-motion for an injunction.

The court found the Statement of Claim fundamentally deficient, lacking essential factual details.

Despite the deficiencies and prior warnings, the court struck the Statement of Claim but granted the plaintiff leave to amend within 30 days, acknowledging the plaintiff's self-represented status.

The plaintiff's motion for an injunction was dismissed as it failed to meet the requirements for injunctive relief.

Nominal costs were awarded against the plaintiff to two leading defendants.