Fredrick Ramsay Schumann

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a city council decision and an integrity commissioner's report finding he engaged in sexual misconduct and obstructed an investigation.

The integrity commissioner recommended, and the city council imposed, a 90-day suspension of pay, a formal reprimand, and other remedial actions.

The Divisional Court upheld the integrity commissioner's findings and process, finding no breach of procedural fairness and that the investigation was properly commenced.

The court upheld most of the remedial actions imposed by the city council but quashed one measure that restricted the councillor to communicating with the public solely via his city email address, finding it overly broad and unreasonable.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario brought a motion for an order permanently staying discipline proceedings against the Member, who was alleged to have referred patients for orthotics to a corporation controlled by her spouse.

The Member consented to the order and signed an undertaking to permanently resign her registration and never re-apply.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the resolution protected the public interest, served public transparency, and avoided the costs of a full hearing.

The Member was also ordered to pay $10,000 in costs.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario brought a motion to stay allegations of professional misconduct against the member and indefinitely adjourn the hearing.

The member consented to the order, having signed an Undertaking and Acknowledgement to permanently resign his registration, never re-apply, and pay $8,000 in costs.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the resolution protected the public interest, served public transparency, and avoided the costs of a full hearing.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario brought a motion to stay allegations of professional misconduct against the member and indefinitely adjourn the hearing.

The member consented to the order, having signed an Undertaking and Acknowledgement to permanently resign his registration, never re-apply, and pay $8,000 in costs.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the resolution protected the public interest, served public transparency, and avoided the costs of a full hearing.

The appellants, Xundong Qin and Cenith Air Inc., sued the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) and three of its employees for malicious prosecution after the OSC's allegations against them were dismissed.

The respondents moved to strike the claim, arguing issue estoppel applied due to a prior Superior Court order by Pattillo J. that continued a freeze order, finding a "serious issue to be tried." The motion judge granted the strike.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the "serious issue to be tried" standard for continuing a freeze order is a lower threshold than "reasonable and probable cause" required for malicious prosecution.

Therefore, the issue of reasonable and probable cause was not "necessarily bound up" in Pattillo J.'s decision, and issue estoppel did not apply.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract action on summary judgment.

The appellant claimed an ongoing oral contract required the respondent to make annual payments of $1.2 million in perpetuity.

The motion judge found no documentary evidence supporting the existence of such a contract and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appeal and the application for leave to appeal the costs award were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a one-year sentence for civil contempt imposed by the trial judge.

The appellant argued the sentence was excessive, that the judge was inflamed by the appellant's non-compliance with asset freezing and disclosure orders, and that the sentence was purely punitive rather than coercive.

The appellant also contended the sentence was out of line with other civil contempt cases.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence appropriate given the appellant's multiple opportunities to purge contempt, attempts to deceive the court, the brazen and deliberate nature of the contempt, the underlying $7 million civil fraud, and the lack of asset recovery despite the judge's delay in imposing sentence.

The appellant sought to set aside an order enforcing a settlement agreement.

The appellant was a fully informed participant in the settlement, acting on legal advice, and knowingly entered into the settlement structured in the manner challenged on appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no illegality or impropriety in the enforcement of the settlement and upheld the motion judge's decision to enforce it.

The court also upheld the costs award made by the motion judge.

In this class action appeal, the court considered whether the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 31.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the names and number of class members who opted out of two companion class actions concerning municipal licensing fees for charitable and religious fundraising events.

The appellants had engaged in a public campaign during the opt-out period to encourage class members to opt out, which the class actions judge found created undue influence.

A protection order was imposed preventing disclosure of opt-out information during a reconsideration period.

After the reconsideration period, the appellants sought to lift the protection order.

The Divisional Court held that the deemed undertaking rule applied to the opt-out information.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the opt-out information is statutorily created information not subject to the deemed undertaking rule, and that class members should be treated as akin to parties whose identities are entitled to be known by the actual parties and the public.

Enrique Kachuka brought a motion under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude seized currency as evidence in a forfeiture application by the Attorney General of Ontario under the Civil Remedies Act.

Kachuka argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrants of his vehicle and apartment was legally insufficient, leading to an unreasonable search and seizure in breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

He also contended that police breached his s. 8 rights by submitting a report of seized items past the statutory deadline and with technical errors.

The court found that the issuing Justice of the Peace had reasonable grounds to issue the search warrants, as police surveillance and corroborated confidential informant information established a sufficient nexus between observed drug transactions and Kachuka's apartment.

The court also determined that the reporting delays and errors did not constitute a meaningful infringement of s. 8 rights, as there was no residual privacy interest in the seized cash.

The motion to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the forfeiture application was to proceed.

The plaintiffs succeeded on their appeal to add a term confirming the applicability of the deemed undertaking under Rule 30.1.

They sought partial indemnity costs for the appeal and leave motion.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $13,202 in costs for the appeal.

Regarding the initial motion below, the court found that success was divided and set aside the previous costs order of $16,686.33, ordering no costs for the initial hearing.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing for a member found to have committed professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient, performing unauthorized controlled acts, and failing to cooperate with a College investigation.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Committee determined that recent legislative amendments mandating revocation for certain forms of sexual abuse applied retrospectively to the member's conduct.

Consequently, the Committee directed the Registrar to revoke the member's certificate of registration.

The Committee also ordered the member to receive a public reprimand, post $16,060 as security for the victim's therapy and counselling, and pay $20,000 in costs to the College.

The Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for providing false receipts for acupuncture and massage therapy in exchange for $2,000 in cash.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, imposing a reprimand, ethics course, reflection piece, practice assessment, and a six-month suspension (reducible to three months upon completion of terms).

The Member was also ordered to pay $2,500 in costs.

The appellants (tenant and its successor) repudiated a commercial lease for an industrial property owned by the respondent.

The respondent was forced to sell the property and sued for damages.

The trial judge awarded $1,277,000 in damages, including lost rental profits and lost capital appreciation.

The appellants appealed, arguing the sale at fair market value fully mitigated damages and that lost capital appreciation was too remote.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that damages for lost capital appreciation were too remote under the Hadley v. Baxendale test, that the property was sold at fair market value, and that damages should be calculated using a discounted cash flow analysis based on the 2013 sale price with appropriate deductions for mitigation.

The appellant charities in two related class actions appealed a case management judge's decision declining to continue a protective order over the identities of potential class members who opted out.

The appellants argued the judge failed to consider whether the deemed or implied undertaking rules applied to this information.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the names and numbers of opt-outs disclosed by the plaintiffs' counsel to the defendants' counsel, as this information is relevant and discoverable.

Following conviction on charges of Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer, the defendant, a former Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, was sentenced to four months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation with 100 hours of community service.

The defendant had directed the wiping of computer hard drives in the Office of the Premier to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and anticipated legislative committee production orders regarding the gas plant controversy.

The court found the offence struck at the heart of democratic accountability and transparency, warranting incarceration despite the defendant's otherwise exemplary character and community contributions.

David Livingston, Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, and Laura Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Strategy, were charged with Breach of Trust by a Public Official, Commit Mischief to Data, and Unauthorized Use of a Computer.

The Crown abandoned the Breach of Trust charge.

The defendants were accused of directing the wiping of twenty computers in the Office of the Premier during the transition from Premier McGuinty to Premier Wynne in early 2013, allegedly to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and potential Legislative Standing Committee Production Orders related to the controversial cancellation and relocation of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants.

The Crown alleged the defendants obtained administrative rights through deception and hired an outside IT consultant to indiscriminately wipe hard drives.

The defendants claimed they sought only to delete personal information and Liberal Party documents from departing staff computers.

Justice Lipson found Livingston guilty on both remaining counts (Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer) but acquitted Miller due to insufficient evidence of her knowledge of Livingston's deceptive means in obtaining administrative rights.

A helicopter operated by an air ambulance service crashed shortly after takeoff from Moosonee, Ontario on May 31, 2013, killing four crew members.

The Crown charged the operator with six counts under the Canada Labour Code, alleging failure to ensure employee safety.

At trial, three counts remained: two alleging failure to provide pilots with means to maintain visual reference while operating at night (counts 3 and 4), and one alleging failure to provide adequate supervision by eliminating the Base Manager position (count 10).

The Crown argued that night vision goggles should have been provided.

The court found that while the crash was caused by controlled flight into terrain, the defendant exercised due diligence and complied with all regulatory requirements.

All three counts were dismissed.

The defendants, David Livingston and Laura Miller, pleaded not guilty to charges of breach of trust by a public official, mischief to data, and unauthorized use of a computer.

The Crown withdrew the breach of trust count at the close of its case.

The defendants brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the remaining two counts.

The court found that while the Crown failed to establish that actual data was destroyed, there was sufficient evidence that the defendants attempted to commit mischief to data without legal justification or colour of right.

The motion was allowed in part on the mischief to data count, which was reduced to attempt to commit mischief to data.

The motion was dismissed on the unauthorized use of a computer count.

The Crown sought to qualify Robert Gagnon, a retired OPP officer, as an expert in computer systems operation and forensic recovery of computer data.

The defence opposed qualification, arguing that Gagnon's extensive involvement in the police investigation and his expressed bias regarding the defendants' guilt disqualified him from providing independent and impartial expert evidence.

The court excluded Gagnon's evidence, finding that he had conflated the roles of expert and investigator, participated extensively in investigative strategy and team meetings, and demonstrated lack of independence and impartiality through his communications recommending charges and providing strategic legal advice to investigators.