Faye E. McWatt

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario suspending her certificate of registration.

The suspension followed investigations into her infection prevention and control practices, dissemination of COVID-19 misinformation, and alleged issuance of a vaccine exemption to an immunocompromised patient.

The applicant refused to cooperate with the investigations, arguing the College lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the suspension order was reasonable, factually grounded, and necessary to protect the public from harm given the applicant's ungovernability.

The court also dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence and found no breach of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed findings of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty and costs ordered by the Discipline Committee of the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant committed professional misconduct by charging misleading fees, failing to provide medication information, improperly using the title of doctor, and failing to cooperate with an investigator, among other things.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the investigation and hearing were procedurally fair, the factual and credibility findings were reasonable, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the penalty and costs awards were fit.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action on behalf of purchasers of Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles who sold their vehicles prior to the disclosure of the emissions defeat device.

The motion judge had found no plausible methodology to calculate damages on a class-wide basis.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by requiring a tangible demonstration of the proposed methodology rather than merely assessing whether it met the low 'some basis in fact' threshold of plausibility.

The matter was remitted to a new judge to rehear the balance of the certification issues.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a 15% rent reduction for tenants after the landlord unilaterally removed on-site storage lockers to build new rental units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations regarding the unreasonableness of the landlord's actions and the quantum of the rent reduction were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not subject to statutory appeal.

The Court also held that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by crafting a global remedy for all affected tenants without requiring each individual tenant to testify.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a committee's decision to issue a caution regarding his obstetrical care of a patient whose infant died.

The applicant argued the committee breached procedural fairness by rejecting his proposal for a remedial agreement and ignoring his expert's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision reasonable, as the committee was not bound by its decision-making framework guidelines and was entitled to weigh the expert evidence using its own specialized medical knowledge.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing nine judicial review applications on the basis that it lacked public interest standing.

The Divisional Court panel found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the test for public interest standing.

The motion judge correctly concluded that the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue transcending specific individual interests and that judicial review was not a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a motion judge's decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions: whether the motion judge erred in ordering that the joint retainer of the accountant continue, and whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents under the retainer agreement.

Leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed two decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.

In the first appeal, the appellant argued that an adjudicator reconsidering their own decision violated procedural fairness.

In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the Tribunal's withdrawal of a decision mistakenly rendered by an adjudicator who did not hear the oral evidence created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that the Tribunal's reconsideration process is procedurally fair and that correcting an administrative error by withdrawing the mistaken decision and having the correct adjudicator issue a new one cured any procedural defect without raising a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that required it to pay an employee his hourly wage for time spent commuting between an out-of-town hotel and a job site in a rental car provided by the employer.

The arbitrator found that the rental car constituted the 'Employer's equipment' under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's practical, common-sense interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which ordered him to be cautioned regarding informed consent for cataract surgery.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was not provided with the clinical findings of another physician obtained during the investigation, and that the ICRC's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness at the investigative stage is limited and the applicant had sufficient notice of the complaint to respond.

The court also held that the ICRC's decision to issue a remedial caution was reasonable and within its statutory screening function.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the Registrar's refusal to issue him a cannabis retail manager licence.

The refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct, including his involvement in an illegal dispensary, a prior conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, and ongoing civil litigation involving allegations of bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in its factual findings and that the appellant was afforded procedural fairness during the hearing de novo.

The plaintiff 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 plaintiff to pay costs of $2,500 to the defendant.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as moot because in-person civil jury trials were anticipated to resume, and the action remained scheduled for October 2022.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the moving parties' right to re-submit the motion if circumstances prevented the trial from proceeding with a jury as scheduled.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the orders of the motions judge granting and extending interim injunctive relief in favour of the plaintiff.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issues of whether the motions judge erred in granting the initial injunction and extending it despite a pending anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs of the leave motion were awarded to the moving party.

The appellant tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that one of the co-tenants was denied due process because her name was omitted from the ex parte eviction application and subsequent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the omission was a clerical error, the co-tenant had notice of the proceedings, and she suffered no prejudice.

The court ordered the eviction order amended to add the co-tenant's name nunc pro tunc.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

A motions judge struck her affidavit containing evidence not before the HRTO and subsequently dismissed her motion to adduce further evidence as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The applicant brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside those decisions.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time and that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in applying the general rule against admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Toronto Review Body denying her late request to review the loss of her rent-geared-to-income (RGI) subsidy.

The applicant lost her eligibility in 2019 for failing to provide required income and asset information, but did not request a review until over two years later.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Review Body met its duty of procedural fairness, which was at the lower end of the spectrum, and that its decision to deny the late request was reasonable given the applicant's failure to provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The appellant, a taxi driver, was assaulted by a passenger after exiting his vehicle to collect a fare.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, which were denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding the purpose and causation tests were not met.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issues raised were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable errors of law, and the Tribunal made no error in its application of the legal tests.

The proposed appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal concerning a pleading amendment, but granted leave to appeal concerning privilege and the real estate solicitor's file.

As success was divided, no costs were awarded.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the moving parties.