Glynnis P. Burt

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal considered written submissions regarding the costs of the motion before the lower court.

The Court ordered that the costs of the motion be remitted to the motion judge for reconsideration in light of the appellate reasons.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action appealed a motion judge's decision striking out several claims from their statement of claim against an insurer regarding the sale and administration of universal life insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and deceit and fraud, finding it was not plain and obvious these claims would fail.

The court upheld the striking of allegations concerning releases because the plaintiffs failed to request specific relief for those who signed them.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed a decision by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to take no further action regarding her complaints against two doctors.

The complaints related to a spinal anaesthetic administered in 1994 and subsequent care.

The Divisional Court found HPARB's decision reasonable, noting that the investigation was adequate and the treatment provided was within professional expectations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought orders to have a motion for approval of a third party financing and indemnity agreement heard without notice to the defendant, in camera, and with the documents sealed.

They argued that disclosure would compromise solicitor-client privilege and litigation strategy.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the defendant is affected by the funding agreement and entitled to notice and participation.

The court further held that third party funding agreements are not privileged, or if they are, the privilege is waived when applying for court approval.

The open court principle requires the funding motion to be heard publicly, though the court provided specific procedural directions for the future motion.

The applicant filed human rights applications against numerous dentists, physicians, and administrative staff, alleging discrimination based on disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed he received substandard medical and dental care because he was an ODSP recipient and because of his spiritual beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to the protected grounds under the Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in services against a hospital and an emergency room physician.

The applicant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and brought to the hospital, where the physician assessed her and subsequently reported her to the Ministry of Transportation, resulting in the suspension of her driver's license.

The physician requested that the application against him be dismissed at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish that the physician's actions, including his reliance on her history of mental health apprehensions and his decision not to inform her of the report, were discriminatory.

The application against the physician was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondents delayed providing his HIV test results to his family physician and disclosed his HIV status to his employer.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no evidence linking the respondents' actions to his alleged disability.

Furthermore, the applicant's test results were negative and he had never been diagnosed with HIV.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellants appealed an order of the motions judge which concluded that there was no real and substantial connection to support jurisdiction and that jurisdiction should be declined on the ground of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge's cogent and persuasive reasons and finding no grounds to interfere with the result.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of an order by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Board of Inquiry requiring her to submit to an extensive medical examination to assess her capacity to practice.

The Board ordered the examination after receiving allegations of narcotic administration discrepancies but provided no reasons for its decision.

The Divisional Court quashed the order, holding that the highly intrusive nature of the examination and the severe consequences of non-compliance triggered a high duty of procedural fairness under the Baker factors, which included a duty to provide reasons demonstrating reasonable and probable grounds for the order.

The member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for restraining an elderly patient without consent or a physician's order using a bed sheet, and for briefly covering the patient's mouth to quiet her.

The member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission as to Penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-week suspension, and conditions on the member's certificate of registration, including meeting with a Practice Consultant and employer notification requirements.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct related to her care of a patient in labour.

The Member admitted to failing to call an anaesthetist to administer an epidural in a timely manner and failing to apply continuous electronic fetal monitoring while the patient ambulated, contrary to hospital policy.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member was reprimanded, suspended for 30 days, and subjected to conditions on her certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to assess a resident at a long-term care facility during her shift.

The resident's condition deteriorated and she subsequently died in hospital.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a three-week suspension, and conditions on her certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for falsifying client assessment records and submitting a fraudulent mileage expense claim.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts in which the Member admitted to not attending client visits but completing documentation to make it appear she had, due to workload difficulties.

The Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission as to Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-week suspension, and conditions on her certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse and co-owner of a private seniors' residence, faced numerous allegations of professional misconduct relating to the care of a vulnerable elderly resident.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member unnecessarily restrained the resident, confined them to their room, failed to administer prescribed medications, and failed to seek required medical attention, ultimately leading to the resident's death from bronchopneumonia.

The Member also directed untrained, unregulated staff to perform nursing functions, submitted fraudulent invoices for care not provided, and misrepresented the facility's services and visiting policies.

The Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including physical and emotional abuse, and ordered the revocation of her certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, provided home care to a client and developed an inappropriate personal relationship with him, breaching the boundaries of the therapeutic nurse-client relationship.

The Member disclosed personal and financial difficulties, accepted gifts and assistance, wore unprofessional clothing, and eventually moved in with the client after his discharge from home care.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and conditions on the Member's certificate of registration.