Joanna Lee Birenbaum

The College of Physiotherapists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by referring patients to a Pilates studio and allowing the studio to bill those services as physiotherapy under her name and registration number.

The registrant admitted to the allegations via an agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the registrant failed to maintain the standards of practice, submitted false or misleading accounts, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a 15-month suspension (with 7 months remitted upon completion of remediation), practice enhancement coaching, a reprimand, and $7,000 in costs.

The College of Physiotherapists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by engaging in boundary violations, including inappropriate touching and comments, and failing to obtain informed consent or provide adequate draping during treatment.

The registrant admitted to the allegations in an agreed statement of facts.

The Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a suspension of up to five months, remedial training, and $3,500 in costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for blurring professional boundaries by providing personal emotional support to a friend, falsifying a record by writing a letter claiming to be the friend's treating psychotherapist, and threatening the friend and his spouse after learning they had complained to the College.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-month suspension, a reprimand, individualized ethics instruction, counselling, supervision, and costs of $4,700, finding the penalty protected the public and did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant J.T., who was 16 years old at the time, reported to police that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted them four years earlier.

The plaintiff was charged but acquitted after the trial judge found J.T.'s evidence to be fabricated.

The plaintiff subsequently sued J.T. for malicious prosecution.

J.T. brought a motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that J.T.'s report to police was an expression on a matter of public interest, and that the malicious prosecution claim lacked substantial merit because J.T. did not initiate the prosecution.

The court also dismissed the police defendants' crossclaim against J.T. and their motion to amend pleadings.

The moving party, a registered physiotherapist, sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a decision by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario ordering him to receive a caution for not wearing a mask while treating a patient during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the 8-month delay was due to a lack of diligence, that the delay prejudiced the public interest in timely resolution of regulatory processes, and that the proposed application lacked merit.

The decision addresses an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act in a defamation action brought by Prasanth Tella against A.B., his former partner.

The allegedly defamatory statements were made primarily to the Ottawa Police Service’s Professional Standards Section and to a few other individuals.

The court finds that most of the statements at issue relate to a matter of public interest, but some do not.

The court concludes that the statements made to the Professional Standards Section are protected by absolute privilege and that the plaintiff has not met the burden to show there are no valid defences.

The action is dismissed, with leave to bring a new action regarding certain statements if desired.

The court also grants an anonymity order and a publication ban regarding the defendant’s identity.

The applicant physiotherapist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision.

The ICRC had investigated a patient complaint of inappropriate touching and, while unable to determine the truth of the allegations, required the applicant to complete a remedial education program and receive a caution due to poor record-keeping and boundary concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC and HPARB decisions reasonable, noting that the remedies were educational rather than punitive and were supported by the evidentiary record.

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision striking down the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, which eliminated TTC employees' right to strike and replaced it with binding interest arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the complete ban on strikes violates the employees' right to meaningful collective bargaining under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court further found that the Crown failed to justify the infringement under s. 1, as it did not demonstrate that the complete ban was minimally impairing or that its salutary effects outweighed the deleterious effects on the workers' Charter rights.

The Applicants challenged the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, arguing it infringed their freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by prohibiting the right to strike and replacing it with compulsory binding interest arbitration.

The court found the Act substantially interfered with meaningful collective bargaining and was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as the TTC was not an "essential service" in the constitutional sense, and the economic and equity concerns did not justify the complete prohibition of the right to strike.

The Act was declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation appealed an order concerning the disposition of statistical reports arising from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and Independent Assessment Process.

The appellant sought directions for the appointment of an independent third-party statistical expert to prepare the reports, following the Chief Adjudicator's inability to do so.

The respondent Attorney General of Canada argued the motion should be remitted to the supervising judge of the Superior Court.

The Court of Appeal remitted the motion for directions to the Superior Court for case management and adjudication, emphasizing the supervising judge's extensive experience and the contentious nature of the proceedings requiring litigation.

Canada brought a Request for Direction seeking approval of its proposal to archive copies of certain Non-Claim Records from the Independent Assessment Process with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and the Assembly of First Nations responded with some objections, particularly regarding the redaction of personal information.

The court approved Canada's proposal, finding it consistent with the legal framework governing government document retention, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, and previous court orders, while deferring the issue of Static Reports to a future Request for Direction.

This is an appeal concerning the disposition of statistical reports and records arising from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and the Independent Assessment Process (IAP).

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) appealed a lower court order that dismissed a request to generate and archive "proposed Static Reports" and excluded certain "Non-Claim Records." The Court of Appeal found that the Supervising Judge erred in dismissing the request for proposed Static Reports due to insufficient evidentiary foundation regarding confidentiality risks, reliability, and utility for truth and reconciliation.

The court remitted this issue for rehearing and ordered a stay on the destruction of the SADRE database.

The appeal regarding the exclusion of specific Non-Claim Records was dismissed, as the Supervising Judge properly balanced privacy and historical preservation interests.

The moving party, a lawyer and law professor, brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing his motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court default judgment regarding an unpaid $20,000 loan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting it was brought out of time and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court highlighted the moving party's pattern of delay and uncooperative behaviour, awarding costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the Member.

The parties agreed to the withdrawal in exchange for the Member's undertaking to resign immediately, never seek reinstatement, and never teach again in Ontario.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal protected the public interest and provided finality, particularly given the Member's serious health issues which had indefinitely delayed the hearing.

The appellant physiotherapist appealed an 18-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee for practicing without professional liability insurance and misleading the College.

This was the appellant's third disciplinary proceeding involving dishonesty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was not demonstrably unfit or clearly excessive given the exceptional circumstances, repeated instances of dishonesty, and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The moving party, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, sought a stay pending appeal of orders permitting the destruction of the SADRE database, which contains records from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The moving party also sought procedural directions, including expediting the appeal and guidance on a sealing order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it unnecessary as the database was preserved until December 2020 and the appeal could be expedited.

The court granted the procedural relief, expediting the appeal, allowing an extended factum, and providing directions on the scope of the sealing order.

The applicant, Lo-Ming Lum, brought two motions before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

These motions arose from an earlier action she initiated, which was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious by the Superior Court, with an order barring her from further proceedings without leave.

The motions sought to set aside an order by a single Divisional Court judge and to obtain leave to appeal another interlocutory order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions, affirming that appeals from a single Divisional Court judge lie to a panel of the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The court also issued an order under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the applicant to obtain leave from a single judge of the Court of Appeal before taking any further steps or proceedings related to this action in that court, citing her disregard for prior orders and procedural misuse.

This endorsement settles the form of an order following a Request for Direction (RFD) brought by the Chief Adjudicator of the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) concerning the disposition of "Non-Claim Records" from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

The court had previously dismissed the Chief Adjudicator's RFD but directed Canada to bring a proposal for archiving copies of Non-Claim Records with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR).

The parties disagreed on the wording of the resulting order.

The court resolved these disagreements, largely upholding the Chief Adjudicator's draft order regarding the treatment of privileged documents, the default regime for record retention, and the sealing of certain court exhibits, while rejecting proposed elaborations by the NCTR and Assembly of First Nations.

The appellant, Barry Weisleder, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation action against the respondent union.

The motion judge had found the allegedly defamatory speech was protected by qualified privilege and that malice was not established.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, upholding the finding of qualified privilege and the absence of malice, noting that the ample evidentiary record allowed for a summary judgment decision on malice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) brought a motion to be added as a party to a pending Request for Direction concerning the disposition of 'non-claim records' held by the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed the motion, arguing that the NCTR's participation should be deferred until jurisdictional issues were resolved.

The court granted the NCTR's motion, finding that it had a direct interest in the disposition of the records and could provide unique evidence regarding its archival practices, and declined to bifurcate the proceedings.