Jeffrey Elliot Feiner

The appellant anaesthesiologist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he failed to maintain the standard of the profession and engaged in disgraceful conduct following the death of a patient after liposuction surgery.

The Committee revoked his certification and issued a reprimand, finding he failed to recognize the patient's critical condition, lacked insight, and dishonestly altered a resuscitation note.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's factual findings were reasonable, the appellant was not denied procedural fairness, and the penalty of revocation was appropriate given the severity of the misconduct and lack of insight.

The plaintiff moved under rule 37.14(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing her wrongful dismissal action for delay under rule 48.14(5).

The court applied the contextual analysis derived from appellate jurisprudence and considered the four Reid factors: explanation for the delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

While the plaintiff established inadvertence and moved promptly after learning of the dismissal, the court found the litigation delay inadequately explained and concluded that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the expiry of the limitation period.

Balancing the competing principles of deciding cases on their merits and ensuring timely justice, the court declined to grant a further indulgence.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was therefore refused.

The plaintiff and defendants were neighbours involved in a property dispute over a shared walkway, a privacy screen, and a hedge located near their property line.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of these features through adverse possession, arguing her predecessors in title had exclusively possessed the area.

The court dismissed the adverse possession claim, finding the predecessors' use was cooperative and permissive, not adverse.

However, the court awarded the plaintiff $7,700 in special, general, and punitive damages for the defendants' highhanded and oppressive conduct in trespassing to remove a shared wooden fence and installing a gate that opened onto the plaintiff's property.

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 teacher sought judicial review of a decision by the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers to refer a complaint of professional misconduct to the Discipline Committee.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness due to insufficient particulars regarding allegations of inappropriate interactions with male students.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Investigation Committee is a screening body owed a limited duty of fairness, and that the applicant had received reasonable information about the allegations as required by the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The appellants, an investment management firm and minority shareholder, appealed the dismissal of their oppression application against the respondent corporation and its directors.

The application judge had found that the challenged related-party transactions were within the reasonable expectations of shareholders and protected by the business judgment rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or application of the law.

The court upheld the award of substantial indemnity costs due to the appellants' unfounded allegations of misconduct and misuse of the court process, but allowed the costs appeal in part to deduct pre-application costs.

The appellants applied for admission to a Master's program but were denied because they could not comply with the department's funding policy, which required a portion of external funding to come from the supervising professor's research grants.

The appellants sought judicial review, arguing the policy was an admission standard requiring Senate approval and that its application was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the funding policy was a reasonable administrative supplement to minimum admission requirements, not an admission standard, and that the university's discretionary decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The applicants sought judicial review of Laurentian University's decision to deny them admission to graduate studies.

The Divisional Court held that the decision was discretionary and did not attract certiorari or mandamus.

Applying the factors from Khan v. University of Ottawa, the court found that only minimal procedural fairness was required in this context.

The court concluded there was no flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice and dismissed the application, rejecting allegations of bias or retaliation.