Faye E. McWatt

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the dismissal of a complaint against a physician.

The physician had accessed the deceased patient's hospital records multiple times after being sued for medical malpractice, without the patient's consent.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the HPARB and the investigating committee unreasonably interpreted the Personal Health Information and Protection Act (PHIPA).

The court held that the physician acted as an agent of the hospital, not a health information custodian, and therefore could not unilaterally access the records outside the civil litigation discovery process.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed his requests to reactivate deferred human rights applications and denied reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant failed to reactivate his applications within the 60-day time limit and did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, as they were based on the applicant's failure to comply with procedural rules and a lack of medical evidence supporting his claim of disability-related delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant lawyer was the subject of a Law Society discipline proceeding that was ultimately dismissed after 56 days of hearing.

He sought costs against the Law Society, which were denied by the Hearing Division and the Appeal Division.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court found that the Law Society's investigation was one-sided and procedurally unfair, and its positions on disclosure were unreasonable.

While the court upheld the finding that the proceeding was warranted at the outset, it set aside the decisions denying costs and remitted the matter to a new panel to determine whether the appellant is entitled to costs wasted by the Law Society's undue delay, negligence, or other default.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions, the parties consensually resolved the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court ordered costs payable by the plaintiffs/appellants to the various defendants/respondents in the total amount of $92,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax classification of lands used for gravel pit operations.

The Board had classified more of the licensed land as 'industrial' rather than 'residential', interpreting the relevant regulation to include lands used for activities integral to extraction, such as processing, stockpiling, and movement of machinery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in a manner consistent with the operational realities of mining and properly applied the statutory classification day based on the land's function.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions arising from a privacy breach at two hospitals.

Rogue hospital employees accessed the contact information of maternity patients and sold it to RESP salespeople.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the accessed information (names, addresses, phone numbers, and basic hospital visit details) was personal but not highly private, and that the intrusion would not be regarded by a reasonable person as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation, or anguish.

Although the motions judge erred in his class definition, the appeal was dismissed because the elements of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion were not met.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated August 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 25, 2021.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Petersen J. dated May 25, 2022.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court dated March 28, 2022.

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

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found the landlords served a notice of termination in bad faith but declined to award any remedies under s. 57(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision not to award damages for increased rent, moving expenses, or general damages, and its refusal to impose an administrative fine, were discretionary and based on factual findings that disclosed no error of law.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) appealed a Superior Court decision staying its application under section 87 of the Health Professions Procedural Code to compel a physician to produce patient records.

The physician had refused to produce records related to COVID-19 vaccine exemptions and had separately sought judicial review of the CPSO's investigation.

The Divisional Court held that although the appeal might be moot following the dismissal of the judicial review, it should be heard for reasons of judicial economy.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the stay, finding the applications judge erred in principle by misapprehending the narrow scope of a section 87 application and failing to consider the urgency and public interest in the investigation.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Carter J. dated August 10, 2022.

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

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vella J. dated July 15, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a fresh evidence application and a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the application and the motion, awarding $5,000 in costs to the responding party.

The appellant appealed two decisions regarding her claims for statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The first appeal challenged a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying certain attendant care benefits and setting the interest accrual date, which the Divisional Court dismissed as raising questions of fact rather than law.

The second appeal challenged a Financial Services Commission of Ontario decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for housekeeping benefits due to a 2011 consent order settling the issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding no errors of law and upholding the lower tribunals' decisions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), which found insufficient evidence that police officers committed misconduct during an interaction that ended with the applicant's daughter falling to her death from a balcony.

The applicant alleged excessive force, neglect of duty, deceit, and discreditable conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's investigation and conclusions were reasonable, transparent, and justified based on the evidence.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision that ordered it to pay for a psychological assessment treatment plan because it failed to provide a timely denial notice under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that s. 38(11)2 only requires an insurer to pay for goods and services that are actually incurred during the period before a proper notice is given.

The court found that requiring payment for non-incurred expenses would result in a consumer windfall contrary to the purpose of the legislation.

The reconsideration decision was set aside and the decision of first instance was reinstated.