Faye E. McWatt

The appellant, a registered massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexual abuse of a client.

The Divisional Court found that the Committee made a palpable and overriding error in its credibility assessment of the complainant.

Although the Committee rejected the complainant's allegation that the appellant touched her vagina because her evidence was inconsistent and implausible, it failed to consider how these adverse findings affected her overall reliability regarding the other allegations.

The appeal was granted, the finding of professional misconduct was set aside, and the court declined to remit the matter for a re-hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) order requiring the disclosure of a joint venture agreement and payment records to a requester under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The applicant argued the records were exempt under s. 17(1) as trade secrets and that the IPC breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's process was fair and its conclusion that the agreement was mutually negotiated rather than 'supplied in confidence' was reasonable.

The court also declined to consider a new argument under s. 17(2) that was not raised before the adjudicator.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an endorsement of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party filed no submissions regarding costs, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated July 4, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As both parties were self-represented and no costs submissions were filed, no costs were awarded.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Akazaki J. dated August 12, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of a joint decision by the Ontario and British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioners rejecting claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over documents related to a 2019 cyberattack.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review for privilege claims is correctness.

The Court found the Commissioners correctly determined that facts existing independently of privileged communications must be disclosed pursuant to statutory duties under the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the joint investigation breached procedural fairness, finding it was statutorily authorized and the applicant had acquiesced to the process.

The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding the interpretation of a Share Purchase Agreement and the calculation of an earn-out provision (Target EBITDA).

The trial judge had found that the respondents constructively dismissed two key salespeople and engaged in oppressive conduct, reducing the Target EBITDA accordingly, but refused to further reduce it by a settlement amount the respondents received for a stolen book of business.

The trial judge also refused to adjust the Lower Threshold in the earn-out formula.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's contractual interpretation or his crafting of the oppression remedy, which properly validated the reasonable expectations of the parties as set out in the agreement.

A cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision ordering it to produce copies of a statement of claim and statements of defence to a unit owner.

The appellant argued the records were protected by litigation privilege and exempt from disclosure under section 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that exchanged pleadings are public documents that do not attract litigation privilege, and the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion to order disclosure.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Penny J. dated January 8, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was filed, the court ordered no costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated December 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Faieta J. dated July 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant, whose licence to practice law was revoked in 2012 for ungovernability, sought judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision affirming the denial of his re-licensing application.

The Hearing Division had found the applicant was not of good character due to his failure to disclose outstanding civil judgments, criminal convictions, and prior discipline, as well as a lack of remorse and rehabilitative efforts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeal Division's decision reasonable and concluding there was no procedural unfairness in the tribunal proceedings.

Four physiotherapists sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to issue them verbal cautions.

The cautions related to the inaccurate billing practices of their co-owned multidisciplinary clinic, which systematically waived insurance co-payments but billed the insurer for the full amounts.

The applicants argued the College lacked jurisdiction to regulate clinic business practices and that the decisions were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the College had jurisdiction to hold members accountable for systemic billing issues in their clinics and that the decisions and cautions were reasonable.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for property damage allegedly caused by water discharging from their neighbours' sump pump.

The trial judge found the appellants failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities and noted other possible causes for the minor lawn indentation and concrete cracks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and there was no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. dated December 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the responding party.

The defendants (appellants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of W.D. Newton J. dated August 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the plaintiffs (respondents) did not file a Bill of Costs, the court made no order as to costs.