Dr. Barry Gilbert

The plaintiff's action against the Peel Police was dismissed after a 27-day trial.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $434,377.49.

The court found that a police officer had fabricated evidence against the plaintiff, which constituted conduct bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, the court significantly reduced the costs award to the defendant.

However, because the self-represented plaintiff unnecessarily lengthened the trial by raising irrelevant issues, the court awarded the defendant a modest costs sum of $50,000.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Peel Police Services Board for assault, battery, and harassment spanning from 2000 to 2005.

The claims centered on numerous traffic stops, a 2003 arrest where the plaintiff alleged an officer planted a knife, and a 2005 search warrant execution where the plaintiff was tasered multiple times.

The court found that while one officer had planted evidence in 2003, the plaintiff suffered no provable injury to support a claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

Regarding the 2005 search warrant, the court held that the police had reasonable grounds to execute the warrant and that the use of the taser was justified under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee ordering a clinical caution and preceptorship.

The applicant argued the College lacked statutory authority and breached procedural fairness by initiating a broader investigation into his practice before resolving an initial patient complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the College had the authority to initiate the investigation based on reasonable and probable grounds, the request for OHIP records was relevant, and the disposition addressing both record-keeping and clinical concerns was reasonable.

The defendant was charged with wilfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances in connection with her entitlement to benefits within 10 days after the change occurred, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The defendant had been receiving benefits for work-related back injuries and depression since 2007.

The prosecution presented surveillance evidence showing the defendant engaging in numerous independent activities (driving, shopping, attending events) during June 1-6, 2011, which contradicted her reported condition of severe pain and limited mobility.

The court found that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence, rejecting the defendant's arguments regarding language barriers and medication effects.

The defendant was convicted.