Hilary Anne Brown

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a College committee's decision requiring him to complete a remedial program and attend for a caution.

The discipline stemmed from the physician making a mandatory fitness-to-drive report to the Ministry of Transportation following an argument with a patient, and subsequently disclosing the patient's personal health information to her father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory immunity for reporting under the Highway Traffic Act does not oust the College's regulatory jurisdiction.

The Court further held that the Board's conclusions regarding the unsupportable nature of the report and the breach of patient confidentiality were reasonable.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim decision and order of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded agreed costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The Assessment Review Board issued an order revising the returned assessments for various mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited, Glencore Canada Corporation, and Xstrata Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years.

The revisions were based on a joint submission by the parties following a previous interim decision.

The Board ordered the assessments to be revised to reflect the agreed-upon current values and apportionments set out in the attached schedule.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of eight mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years, arguing the values were too low.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Cost Approach valuation methodology to determine the Reproduction Cost New, depreciation, and land value.

The Board accepted the valuation evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), finding it to be the best available evidence over the City's expert evidence.

The Board also determined that no equitable adjustment to the current values was required.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding the assessment of eight mining properties.

The City sought various documents related to MPAC's land value analysis and cost rates under the Cost Approach valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality under Rule 45.

The Board ordered MPAC to disclose specific sales verification questionnaires and a legible version of its 2016 Automated Cost Systems rates, subject to redactions under s. 53 of the Assessment Act.

The Board denied several other requests as being overly broad, disproportionate, or relating to documents not in MPAC's possession.

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 assessed persons, Glencore and Vale, brought a motion to prevent the City of Greater Sudbury from amending its pleadings and advancing certain issues in property assessment appeals for eight mining properties.

They argued that the City was precluded from doing so based on issue estoppel, promissory estoppel, abuse of process, and admissions, relying on a previous Board decision concerning six related properties and representations made in joint procedural requests.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the same questions had not been decided, no unequivocal promises were made, the City was following the Board's ordered process, and no binding admissions had been made.

The applicant, a non-profit environmental education centre, sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal taxation under section 3(1)5 of the Assessment Act as an 'educational seminary of learning'.

The respondent assessment corporation opposed the application, arguing the centre lacked a structured curriculum, regular students, and formal instructors.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the primary purpose of the centre, determined objectively, was educational.

The court held that a flexible approach to the definition of a 'seminary of learning' was appropriate, and the centre's workshops, symposiums, and experiential learning programs sufficiently constituted a focused educational agenda.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the plaintiff had not remedied the deficiencies identified in a previous ruling by Diamond J., nor had the law changed to overcome these deficiencies.

The claims for intentional interference with economic relations failed because the third party (Contac) had released its claims against the defendants.

The conspiracy claim failed as it alleged a conspiracy between a corporate officer acting within his corporate capacity and the corporation itself, which is a legal impossibility.

The court also affirmed that a sole shareholder cannot sue for harm done to the corporation when the corporation itself has released its claims.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of six active mining properties for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing that the assessments were too low.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current values using the cost approach.

The Board accepted the evidence of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the respondent property owners regarding the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value, rejecting the City's proposed adjustments and global depreciation caps as unsupported.

The Board confirmed the current values as determined by MPAC and found no equitable reduction was required.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of several active mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The City argued that the assessments by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) were too low and sought significant increases.

The Board applied the cost approach to determine the current value, evaluating the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value.

The Board rejected the City's evidence, finding it unreliable and based on incorrect premises, and instead accepted MPAC's detailed and transparent costing and valuation methodology, which was supported by the property owners' experts.

The Board confirmed MPAC's current value assessments and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which determined that the current value assessment of a landfill site should exclude the value of a facility used to generate electricity from landfill gas.

The appellants argued the facility was a commercial activity, not used exclusively for landfilling activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the generation of electricity from landfill gas is an environmental control activity required by the site's environmental compliance approval, and thus falls within the definition of landfilling activities under O. Reg. 282/98.

The applicant, a community development corporation, brought an application for a declaration that it is a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and therefore exempt from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)(9) of the Assessment Act.

The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, including ejusdem generis, and found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a local board.

The application was dismissed.

The City of Greater Sudbury requested the Assessment Review Board to summon Dale Panday, a director of Hanscomb Limited, as a witness for an upcoming hearing regarding the assessment of various mining properties.

The City sought his testimony on the accuracy of the Automated Costing System component values compared to actual construction costs in Sudbury.

The Board refused the request, finding that the City failed to provide a sufficient summary of the expected evidence, did not establish that the witness had the requisite knowledge, failed to identify the witness in the prior case management order, and made the request too late in the proceeding, which would cause unacceptable delay.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which imposed a 12-month suspension and a general prohibition on prescribing and administering controlled substances.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by departing from a joint submission that would have allowed him to continue prescribing in an in-hospital setting, and by imposing a 12-month rather than 6-month suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee provided adequate notice of its concerns, met the high threshold for departing from a joint submission, and imposed a fit and proportionate penalty given the appellant's severe clinical deficiencies.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The Township of Warwick appealed the property assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

The central issue was whether the valuation of the landfill under section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 should include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 requires the exclusion of value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity, as the regulation mandates valuing the land as if it were vacant industrial land.

The Board set the current value of the property at $6,387,000 for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Township of Warwick appealed the MPAC assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years.

The central issue was whether section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 requires the valuation of the landfill as 'vacant industrial land' to include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 establishes a special valuation regime that ousts the general market value approach under section 19(1) of the Assessment Act.

Consequently, the value of the remaining landfilling capacity must be excluded.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $6,387,000 and found no basis for an equity adjustment.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against MPAC and Vale Canada Limited regarding the assessment of several special purpose mining properties.

The City sought actual construction costs from Vale and information regarding MPAC's valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances to amend the Schedule of Events for the requests directed at Vale.

While exceptional circumstances existed for two requests directed at MPAC based on new information in its expert report, the Board found those requests were overbroad and not proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included a guilty plea related to OHIP billing, clinical and record-keeping deficiencies, and misleading the College regarding a vaccine administration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was irremediable given his extensive 18-year disciplinary history.

The court held that the penalty of revocation was proportionate and not clearly unfit.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The court set a timetable for the service and filing of materials, directed that the hearing proceed by Zoom videoconference, and provided instructions for the electronic filing of documents.