Jeremy Adam Richler

The Member, while registered as a non-practising Registered Practical Nurse and employed as a Personal Support Worker, engaged in a sexual relationship with an 80-year-old patient with dementia.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing the patient and failing to maintain professional boundaries.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, as mandated by the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin and disability against a police services board and a hospital.

The applicant missed a connecting flight, exhibited unusual behaviour, and was arrested by police for public intoxication and assaulting an officer.

He was subsequently taken to a hospital where he underwent an involuntary psychiatric assessment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the decisions of the police officers or the doctor were based on discriminatory stereotypes or prejudices rather than the applicant's own conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a restaurant owner of South American origin, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation and property management company discriminated against him on the basis of ethnic origin, national origin, and race.

He claimed the respondents selectively enforced condominium rules regarding temporary signage, changed the voting procedure for Declaration amendments to prevent his expansion, delayed his permanent signage approval, and failed to cut grass near his unit.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions, such as enforcing a uniform signage plan across all units and following a vote by owners to change the amendment procedure.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a nexus between the adverse treatment and a protected Code ground.

During a Commercial List proceeding involving cross-applications between a technology services provider and a provincial agency, the court conducted a case conference addressing litigation management issues.

The court reviewed the parties’ progress under an agreed Litigation Plan, including pleadings exchange and initial documentary production consisting of thousands of documents.

The parties were directed to exchange annotated production requests identifying disputed categories and to meet to resolve disagreements.

A further case conference was scheduled to address remaining production disputes.

The court also encouraged the parties to organize disputed issues chronologically to clarify the technically interrelated events underlying the dispute.

The applicant, a condominium occupant, alleged discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of race and/or sex.

She claimed that the condominium corporation and individual respondents failed to address her complaints regarding debris, noise, and vandalism, and that sub-standard materials were used to repair her balcony.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged differential treatment to her race or sex, relying instead on bald assertions and speculation.

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

Competing applications were brought concerning whether a contractual dispute arising from the termination of an agreement to design and build a diabetes registry should proceed by arbitration or litigation.

One party sought appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the agreement, while the other sought to have the dispute determined through litigation in the Superior Court and consolidated with related defamation proceedings.

Before hearing the applications, the court proposed procedural options, and the parties agreed to proceed with litigation in the Superior Court under case management with an expedited trial schedule.

The applications were adjourned to a case conference to establish a litigation plan, and related defamation actions were transferred to the Commercial List for coordinated management.

The appellant appealed from a directed issue trial arising out of a dispute over the right to provide cable television services to apartment buildings after the landlord terminated its long-standing arrangement and entered into an exclusive agreement with a competitor.

The Court of Appeal held that the landlord's relationship with the appellant was governed by a contract that permitted termination, and the landlord's lawful exercise of that contractual right could not ground the appellant's tort claim.

Because the contractual component was dispositive, it was unnecessary for the trial judge or the appellate court to determine the broader intentional interference with economic relations issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.