Heather Vaughan

The licensee brought a motion for a publication ban prior to the commencement of a professional discipline hearing, arguing that publication of the decision would cause unjust harm to his employment and professional opportunities.

The Discipline Committee applied the Dagenais/Mentuck/Sherman Estate test and found that the licensee failed to establish a serious risk to an important public interest.

The motion was dismissed, as the public interest in transparency and the open court principle outweighed the licensee's private interests in avoiding discomfort or embarrassment.

The Licensee, a registered insurance broker, pled guilty to professional misconduct for submitting 39 false health claims totaling $4,799.47 under her employer's group benefits plan.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Committee found the Licensee guilty of failing to act with integrity and ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and the completion of three hours of ethics education, noting her early admission of guilt and arrangement to repay the insurer as mitigating factors.

The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) brought discipline proceedings against a licensed broker and his brokerage for failing to process a policy cancellation request in a timely manner and for charging impermissible service fees on Facility Association policies.

The licensees pled guilty and submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission, finding that the licensees breached the Code of Conduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand and a $350 fine, noting the licensees' cooperation, lack of prior discipline history, and immediate cessation of the improper fees.

The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) brought professional misconduct allegations against a former insurance broker who misappropriated client premiums and issued fraudulent temporary liability slips.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the broker guilty of misconduct for breaching the Code of Conduct and trust money regulations.

Applying the Anthony-Cook standard, the Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand and accepting the broker's undertaking to never reapply for registration with RIBO.

The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) alleged that the respondent broker committed professional misconduct by sharing confidential client information and delegating tasks to an unlicensed individual.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent guilty of breaching sections 14.1, 14.3, and 14.6 of the Code of Conduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission and ordered a reprimand and the completion of three hours of ethics education, noting mitigating factors including client consent, lack of consumer harm, and the respondent's remorse and cooperation.

The Licensee, an insurance broker, faced allegations of professional misconduct including depositing client premiums into his personal bank account, distributing unauthorized insurance flyers, making false statements to his employers, and breaching client confidentiality.

The Licensee pled guilty to the allegations and agreed to an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding that it did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and ordered a reprimand and a $2,500 fine.

The Licensee, an insurance broker, pled guilty to professional misconduct for failing to report to the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) that his insurance agent license had been revoked by the Financial Services Tribunal.

He also admitted to providing false information on his annual renewal by indicating he was not subject to any disciplinary action.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Licensee guilty and ordering a reprimand along with two hours of ethics education.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a consent judgment settling a claim by the plaintiff and his parents.

The defendant argued that the settlement was reached by his insurer's appointed defence counsel without his personal lawyer's involvement, exposing him to liability exceeding his insurance policy limits through surviving crossclaims.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defence counsel had authority under the Ontario Automobile Policy to settle the claim, the settlement was within the scope of that authority, and the defendant failed to meet the legal test to set aside the consent judgment.

The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment.

This decision addresses a challenge to the admissibility of an expert witness, Dr. David Gladstone, during a medical malpractice trial.

Counsel for the defendants argued that Dr. Gladstone was not impartial or objective and was in a conflict of interest due to a prior treating relationship with the plaintiff.

The court found that Dr. Gladstone had disclosed the prior relationship to the plaintiffs' counsel, believed it irrelevant to his expert opinion, and was confident in his objectivity.

The court also clarified that treating physicians can act as medical experts, with their duty solely to the adjudicative body, not to advocate for former patients.

The judge qualified Dr. Gladstone as an expert and permitted him to testify, criticizing the defendants' counsel for raising the challenge for the first time at trial as a 'trial by ambush'.

The court addressed a dispute in a medical malpractice jury trial regarding the wording of causation questions and whether the jury should provide reasons for their findings.

The plaintiffs proposed "caused or contributed to" language, while the defendants advocated for "but for" and requested reasons.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' "caused or contributed to" language, finding no compelling reason not to translate the "but for" test into everyday language, and rejected the request for the jury to provide reasons, citing the risk of confusion and violation of jury secrecy.

The defendant, Dr. Collings, brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, arguing expert witness immunity and that the damages claimed were speculative.

The plaintiff sued Dr. Collings, a neuropsychologist, for alleged negligence in failing to provide an expert report and records, which the plaintiff claimed led to a reduced settlement in an underlying motor vehicle accident action.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that expert witness immunity applied and, alternatively, that the claim for damages was wholly speculative and constituted "settlement remorse."

The appellant insurer appealed an order determining insurance priorities in a tort action involving a rental car.

The Court of Appeal held that under the Ontario Insurance Act, as amended by Bill 118, the appellant's policy was required to respond first, regardless of whether the policies were limited to Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.