Jaan E. Lilles

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which revoked his certificate of registration for sexually abusing a patient.

The appellant argued that the Committee erred in finding a physician-patient relationship existed and in refusing to quash a summons issued to the reluctant patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's determination of a physician-patient relationship was reasonable based on medical records, OHIP billings, and medical notes provided to the patient.

The Court also upheld the Committee's decision not to quash the summons, concluding that the College's broad investigatory powers and the public interest in prosecuting sexual abuse allegations outweighed the patient's privacy interests.

The plaintiffs brought an action alleging the defendants infringed their copyright in various 'Anne of Green Gables' television productions.

The parties were unable to agree on a discovery plan under Rule 29.1.

The court was asked to establish a discovery plan, specifically addressing the scope of documentary production by both sides, the production of development agreements, and the time limits for oral examinations.

The Master ordered a limited, representative sample of productions from the plaintiffs regarding the alleged infringements, reciprocal financial production on an eyes-only basis, production of the defendants' development agreements subject to redaction, and equal time (14 hours) for oral discoveries for each side.

The moving party sought to review a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court who had declined to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

The moving party argued they were caught by surprise by the nature of the motion below.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to review, finding that this argument was not raised below, the record did not support it, no fresh evidence was adduced, and the single judge made no palpable or overriding error.

Furthermore, the motion to review was itself brought out of time.

In a medical malpractice action, the defendant brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' expert epidemiologist, Dr. Michael Freeman.

The court granted the motion, finding that Dr. Freeman lacked specialized knowledge in the specific medical areas (metabolics and neurology) relevant to the causation question.

His "comparative risk" methodology was deemed outside the mainstream study of epidemiology for specific causation, and his reports indicated a lack of objectivity by primarily critiquing other experts rather than offering independent analysis within his own expertise.

The court also noted that his proposed evidence was not necessary, as the plaintiffs' other expert covered the same points.

The defendant in a medical malpractice action brought a motion at the outset of trial to strike the plaintiffs' jury notice.

The defendant argued that the complex scientific evidence relating to the minor plaintiff's rare metabolic disorder and the issue of causation made the case unsuitable for a jury.

Applying the principles from Kempf v. Nguyen, the court declined to strike the jury notice prior to trial, opting instead for the preferred 'wait and see' approach.

The motion was dismissed with leave to renew after the evidence is completed.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct by falsifying records, submitting a false account, and failing to meet record-keeping standards.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, while the Member proposed a 3-6 month suspension.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a 6-month suspension, and the completion of remedial courses in ethics and record-keeping.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $120,000 in costs to the College, noting that the Member's conduct during the hearing unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario imposing strict practice conditions pending a discipline hearing for alleged sexual abuse.

The allegations involved inappropriate comments and touching during an auscultation.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and set aside the interim order, finding that the Committee lacked evidence to conclude the physician was likely to expose patients to harm or injury.

The court held that the Committee improperly relied on its own clinical assumptions rather than evidence to reject the physician's explanation of his examination technique.

The defendant brought a motion to determine the admissibility of documents created during fitness to practice proceedings by the College of Nurses of Ontario concerning the plaintiff.

The defendant argued that s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act renders these documents inadmissible in civil actions.

The plaintiff contended this was re-litigation and that capacity investigations should be treated differently from discipline processes.

The court concluded that s. 36(3) applies broadly to fitness to practice proceedings, affirming the policy objective of separating college and civil proceedings to encourage expert participation without fear of civil action.

The motion was granted, and all documents created for the College's proceedings related to the plaintiff were declared inadmissible.

The plaintiff underwent a nephrectomy performed by the defendant urologist after being diagnosed with suspected renal cell carcinoma.

Post-surgery pathology revealed the mass was a benign renal abscess.

The plaintiff sued for medical malpractice, alleging breach of the standard of care, lack of informed consent, and that the unnecessary removal of her kidney accelerated her end-stage renal failure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care as the clinical presentation and imaging strongly indicated malignancy and a biopsy was not the standard of care.

The court also found that informed consent was obtained and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as her pre-existing poorly controlled diabetes would have necessitated a kidney transplant regardless of the nephrectomy.

A lawyer appealed a professional misconduct finding based on in-court incivility during a securities prosecution.

The majority held that reasonableness review applied and accepted the disciplinary framework, but found its application unreasonable on the record.

The Court concluded the allegations were made in good faith with sufficient factual foundation in context.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing after finding the Member committed professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient.

The College sought mandatory revocation under the recent amendments to the Health Professions Procedural Code, while the Member argued for a 12-month suspension, asserting the amendments should not apply retrospectively.

The Committee found that the mandatory revocation amendment applied retrospectively because it fell within the public protection exemption.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate, a public reprimand, the posting of $16,060 for the victim's therapy, and $53,500 in costs.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for sexually abusing a patient, the Discipline Committee held a penalty and costs hearing.

The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of the member's certificate of registration and a public reprimand.

Additionally, the Committee ordered the member to post $16,060 in security to reimburse the College for the patient's therapy and counselling.

The member was also ordered to pay $105,000 in costs to the College, representing approximately 65% of the College's total hearing costs.

The member was previously found to have committed professional misconduct by performing unauthorized hirudotherapy (leech therapy), using unauthorized titles, and posting prohibited testimonials.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought a 12-month suspension and $7,500 in costs, while the self-represented member sought a reprimand only, citing financial hardship and her immediate cessation of the prohibited acts.

The Discipline Committee ordered a 9-month suspension (with 3 months remittable upon completion of an ethics program and a reflection report), a public reprimand, and a practice reassessment.

The Committee also ordered the member to pay $5,000 in costs, payable in installments to accommodate her financial circumstances.

The College alleged that the Member, a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner and acupuncturist, sexually abused a patient during an acupuncture treatment by touching her breast, massaging her vaginal area, and inserting his finger into her vagina.

The College also alleged the Member performed an unauthorized controlled act, failed to keep appropriate records, and improperly used the title 'Dr.'.

The Discipline Committee found the patient's evidence to be clear, cogent, and convincing, while the Member's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.

The Committee concluded that the Member committed sexual abuse, performed an unauthorized controlled act, breached standards of practice, failed to maintain proper records, and improperly used the restricted title.

The Member was found guilty of professional misconduct on all allegations.

An appeal from a trial judge's decision regarding the interpretation of an agreement.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's interpretation of key contractual language.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge correctly applied relevant legal principles, did not find the language ambiguous, and gave it its plain meaning with proper consideration of the surrounding provisions and circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The College alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by practicing hirudotherapy (leech therapy), which involves performing an unauthorized controlled act, breaching the Food and Drugs Act, and contravening standards of practice.

The Member was also alleged to have used unauthorized titles (including 'Dr.') and permitted testimonials on her website.

The Member admitted several allegations but argued that others should be dismissed based on the rule against multiple convictions.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of all allegations, concluding that the rule against multiple convictions did not apply because each allegation contained distinct legal and factual elements.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be convened.

David W. Fickel sought leave to appeal from a motion judge's order that stayed the execution of a summary judgment for payment on a promissory note, pending the final resolution of the main action.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment to Fickel on the promissory note but stayed its execution due to the interconnectedness of the claims arising from the same share purchase agreement.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision to grant a stay under Rule 20.08, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance beyond the immediate parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment claiming the defendant breached a non-solicitation covenant in a share purchase agreement by accepting former clients at his new firm.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on a counterclaim for payment of a $400,000 promissory note.

The court found the restrictive covenant did not prohibit the mere acceptance of former clients who transferred their accounts independently without encouragement.

The court also granted judgment on the promissory note, finding no legal or equitable set-off available, but stayed execution of the judgment pending the resolution of the main action.

The College brought a motion to stay discipline proceedings against the member, who faced allegations of professional misconduct including failing to cooperate with an investigation, falsifying records, and submitting false accounts.

The motion was based on an Undertaking and Surrender Agreement in which the member agreed to surrender his certificate of registration, never practice traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture in Canada or the US, and pay $3,000 in costs.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the stay of proceedings and the member's undertaking protected the public interest.

The College brought a motion to stay professional misconduct proceedings against the Member on the basis of an Undertaking and Surrender Agreement.

The Member agreed to surrender his Certificate of Registration, forever withdraw from practice in any jurisdiction, refrain from using the title 'Dr.', and contribute $750 towards investigation costs.

The Discipline Committee found that granting the stay was in the public interest, as the public would be protected by the terms of the agreement and the transparency of the process.