6 total
Mortgage discharged after court finds funds advanced by stepfather to stepdaughter were a gift, not a loan.
The applicants sought to discharge a $160,000 mortgage held by the respondent, the applicant's stepfather, on their property.
The respondent claimed the mortgage secured an interest-free loan provided to assist the applicant in purchasing a previous property.
The applicants argued the funds were a gift and the mortgage was registered solely to protect the gift in the event of a marriage breakdown.
The court found no contemporaneous documentation of a loan, noted the respondent had previously sworn he was owed no money, and concluded the funds advanced were a gift.
The presumption of resulting trust was rebutted, the mortgage was ordered discharged, and the Notice of Sale was declared invalid.
Teacher found guilty of professional misconduct for verbally abusing and belittling a student.
The Member, a teacher, faced a discipline hearing for making inappropriate and belittling comments to a student and failing to provide proper assistance.
The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.
The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal abuse and failing to maintain the standards of the profession.
Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and required the Member to complete a course on classroom management and professional communication.
Motion to set aside default judgment for unpaid legal fees granted; defendant ordered to pay costs.
The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment for unpaid legal bills obtained by her former legal counsel.
The court found that the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the enforcement steps, had a reasonable explanation for the default due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and raised an arguable defence regarding the amount owed.
The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted, but the defendant was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the plaintiff for the motion.
Allegations of professional misconduct against a teacher for mistreating a special needs child dismissed.
The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for allegedly mistreating a special needs child during a behavioural outburst at a respite centre.
The incident was captured on video by a co-worker.
The College alleged verbal, physical, psychological, and emotional abuse.
During the hearing, the Committee ruled on several evidentiary issues, refusing to admit hearsay evidence from the co-worker who recorded the video and refusing to admit expert evidence proposed by the Member.
After reviewing the video and hearing testimony, the Committee found that the College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.
The Committee accepted the Member's explanations that his actions, while perhaps not best practices, were attempts to de-escalate and manage the child's behaviour, not abuse.
Motion for third-party records partially granted; investigative files ordered produced but medical records denied.
The Member, facing allegations of professional misconduct including physical and psychological abuse of a child, brought a motion for the production of third-party records under the O'Connor framework.
The requested records included medical files of the complainant and the child, employment records, and investigative files from the Children's Aid Society and police.
The Discipline Committee denied the request for the medical records, finding them not likely relevant and noting the high privacy interests involved.
The Committee also denied further employment records.
However, the Committee ordered the production of the CAS and police investigative files, subject to redactions for contact information, finding them relevant to the investigation of the incident at issue.
Appeal allowed; Board's finding of a prior capable wish to withdraw life support was unreasonable.
The appellants appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board directing the respondent physician to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from their mother, who was in a persistent vegetative state.
The Board had found that the mother's Power of Attorney for Personal Care contained a clear prior capable wish to refuse artificial or heroic measures.
The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was unreasonable.
The Court held that compelling extrinsic evidence, including the mother's devout Orthodox Jewish beliefs and the drafting lawyer's general practice, rebutted the presumption that she knew and approved of the end-of-life clause in the document.