Fredrick Ramsay Schumann

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision striking down provisions of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 and its Regulation.

The application judge had found that provisions invalidating consent to enter a farm obtained under false pretences violated the freedom of expression of animal rights activists seeking to conduct undercover exposés.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the activists' claim was a positive rights claim seeking access to private property on their own terms.

The Court found that the legislation did not substantially interfere with freedom of expression and that any limits were justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct involving non-consensual sexual touching and inappropriate messages directed at students and a junior employee.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought revocation while the Member sought a 3-4 month suspension.

The Discipline Committee imposed a 6-month suspension, a reprimand, and mandatory ethics courses, noting the serious nature of the boundary violations and exploitation of power imbalances, balanced against the Member's lack of prior discipline history.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $50,000 in costs.

The Mayor of North Bay requested an Integrity Commissioner inquiry into his own expense claims and use of a City-issued corporate credit card.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated whether the Mayor's use of the credit card for personal expenses, which were subsequently reimbursed or offset against mileage allowances, contravened the municipal Code of Conduct.

The Commissioner found no breach of Article VI regarding policy compliance, but concluded that the Mayor contravened Article XII by using City funds for personal family meals, hockey season tickets, and a golf membership, even though the funds were later repaid.

No remedial action was recommended, as the funds had already been reimbursed.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that a social worker committed professional misconduct by refusing counselling services based in part on the complainant's Chinese ethnicity and assumptions about social media use and boundary risks.

Applying the prima facie discrimination framework under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the panel held that the complainant suffered adverse treatment in the provision of services and that the protected ground was a factor in the refusal.

The panel accepted expert evidence on social work boundaries and cultural competence, found that the registrant failed to make adequate inquiries before asserting a boundary conflict, and rejected the registrant's procedural fairness and abuse of process arguments.

Some allegations were dismissed, including those tied to self-determination, referral adequacy, and the intake-form language error, but multiple standards breaches and Code-related misconduct findings were made.

The Member brought a motion in a disciplinary proceeding seeking to dismiss a notice of hearing, exclude evidence obtained during an undercover investigation, and obtain disclosure of an investigative file concerning another member.

The Member argued he had no obligation to cooperate with an investigation into another member.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding that the duty to cooperate under the Health Professions Procedural Code applies even when the member is not the subject of the investigation.

The Committee also found the College had reasonable and probable grounds to commence the investigation and declined to exclude evidence or order further disclosure at the preliminary stage.

The College alleged that the Member, an instructor at a traditional Chinese medicine school, committed professional misconduct involving three complainants.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member touched Complainant C's buttocks without consent, sent inappropriate and sexually suggestive messages to Complainant A (a former and current student), and touched Complainant B's buttocks without consent during a class demonstration.

The Committee rejected the Member's denials and his theory that the complaints were fabricated due to the influence of another student.

The Committee concluded that the Member's actions constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct, as well as conduct unbecoming a practitioner.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

This endorsement addresses seven motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of provisions of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, and its Regulation 701/20, which were found to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to intervene to Animal Alliance, Centre for Free Expression (CFE), Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and Labour Issues Coordinating Committee (LICC), finding they offered useful and distinct perspectives without unduly expanding the appeal's scope.

Motions by Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW), Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), and Animal Environmental Legal Advocacy (AEL Advocacy) were dismissed, primarily due to concerns about expanding the issues or duplication of arguments.

The Member admitted to professional misconduct, including sexual abuse and failing to maintain professional boundaries with a patient.

The Member made inappropriate sexual comments to the patient and engaged in personal and business activities with her during the treating relationship.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension (with one month remitted upon completion of an ethics course), reimbursement of up to $17,370 for patient therapy, and $6,000 in costs.

The College sought to withdraw the allegations contained in a Notice of Hearing against the member because the member had passed away.

The Discipline Committee granted the withdrawal, noting that it was not in the public interest to require a hearing given the member's death.

The member admitted to engaging in professional misconduct by practising acupuncture and holding herself out as a registered member while her certificate of registration was suspended.

She also admitted to obstructing a College investigator and failing to cooperate with the investigation.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the immediate revocation of her certificate of registration, a reprimand, and $4,000 in costs, with an extended 90-day period to pay due to financial difficulties.

The applicants, animal rights activists, challenged the constitutionality of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act and its Regulation.

They argued that provisions voiding consent to enter agricultural premises if obtained under false pretences, and provisions prohibiting interaction with farm animals, violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

The court found that the Act's prohibition on interacting with animals did not violate the Charter, as there is no constitutional right to physically interact with another's private property.

However, the court held that Section 9 of the Regulation, which penalized any false statement made to gain access to agricultural premises, unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression.

The court struck down Section 9 and certain limitations within the whistleblower and journalist exemptions, while upholding the rest of the Act.

The appellant, Christopher Morris, appealed his convictions for firearm offences and his sentence.

The conviction appeal concerned whether an inoperable handgun, requiring a new firing pin, met the definition of "firearm" under the Criminal Code.

The sentence appeal sought a reduction based on the principles of anti-Black racism established in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the handgun was adaptable as a firearm.

The court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the global sentence by one year, acknowledging the impact of anti-Black racism on the appellant's moral culpability and rehabilitation prospects, based on fresh evidence from an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The College brought professional misconduct allegations against the member.

The member did not attend the hearing but had resigned her certificate of registration and provided a written undertaking never to reapply.

The College agreed that, given the resignation and undertaking, it was not contrary to the public interest to adjourn the hearing indefinitely, reserving the right to continue proceedings if the member ever reapplied.

The Discipline Committee adjourned the allegations indefinitely, noting that costs could not be awarded without a finding of professional misconduct.

The appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of uttering threats, claiming he was pressured due to being in custody and unable to afford trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plea was informed and voluntary.

The court noted that while pressures exist when pleading guilty in custody, the plea comprehension inquiry conducted by the trial judge, coupled with the appellant's representation by counsel and lack of voiced concerns at the time, indicated a clear and informed waiver of his right to trial.

The appeal against sentence was also dismissed as the sentence had already been served.

The Auditor General of Ontario appealed a lower court decision regarding the interpretation of section 10 of the Auditor General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

A.35.

The core issue was whether the Act confers authority on the Auditor General to access and compel disclosure of privileged information (solicitor-client, litigation, and settlement privilege) from a grant recipient, Laurentian University of Sudbury, during a value-for-money audit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that statutory language must demonstrate a clear, explicit, and unambiguous intent to abrogate privilege, and the Auditor General Act's provisions did not meet this high standard.

The applicant, Original Traders Energy Ltd. (OTE Group), brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against former executives, Glenn Page and Mandy Cox, and their corporate entity, 2658658 Ontario Inc., to freeze a yacht allegedly purchased with OTE funds through fraudulent means.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud, a serious risk of asset dissipation given the yacht's movement after notice, and that the balance of convenience favored the applicant.

The requirement for an undertaking as to damages was dispensed with due to the applicant's insolvency and the strength of their case.

The order included directing the respondents to facilitate the yacht's return to Florida.

The applicant, the Prime Minister of Canada, sought to quash a subpoena compelling him to testify at the criminal trial of the respondent, who was charged with assault with a weapon for throwing gravel at the applicant during a campaign event.

The court quashed the subpoena on three independent grounds: the respondent failed to show the applicant was likely to give material and necessary evidence; the subpoena was an abuse of process intended for political purposes rather than legal ones; and the applicant enjoyed absolute parliamentary privilege providing testimonial immunity while Parliament is in session.

The Discipline Committee determined the penalty for a member found to have committed professional misconduct by advising a patient to stop thyroid medication and falsely claiming acupuncture could regrow the thyroid gland, leading to the patient's hospitalization.

The College sought revocation, arguing the member was ungovernable due to his failure to participate in the hearing and his relocation to Korea.

The Committee found the member was not ungovernable, noting his prior expressions of remorse and lack of discipline history.

The Committee ordered a 12-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial terms including the PROBE program, and costs of $29,818.45.

This endorsement addresses four motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in a constitutional challenge brought by Animal Justice et al. against the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020.

The applicants in the main case allege violations of Charter rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press, peaceful assembly, liberty, security of the person, arbitrary detention, and reverse onus.

The court applied the test for intervention, considering the nature of the case, the issues, and the likelihood of a useful contribution without causing injustice or expanding the record.

The motion by Justice for Migrant Workers was dismissed for lack of a substantial interest and for attempting to expand the issues.

The motion by Centre for Free Expression was allowed in part, limited to the existing issues and excluding a proposed s. 2(a) Charter argument due to lack of a developed record and expertise.

The motions by Animal Alliance of Canada and Regan Russell Foundation were fully allowed, as they met the criteria and did not seek to expand the issues.

All successful interventions were granted subject to specific conditions on written and oral submissions.

The College sought to withdraw the allegations in the Notice of Hearing against the respondent.

The respondent had previously executed an undertaking to surrender his certificate of registration and never reapply.

The Discipline Committee permitted the withdrawal, finding that a full hearing was not in the public interest given the respondent's undertaking and the disposal of a prior Notice of Hearing.