John R. Sproat

The appellant, a teacher, appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers that revoked her teaching certificate for professional misconduct related to off-duty social media posts.

The appellant argued the penalty ignored her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee committed a fatal error of law by failing to conduct a proper Doré analysis regarding the Charter implications of disciplining the appellant for her speech.

The matter was remitted back for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal that ordered the issuance of insurance agent licences to the respondent.

The respondent had previously made false statements on his licence applications regarding his termination from a bank and had conducted unlicensed insurance activity.

The Tribunal found that despite the misconduct, the respondent was suitable to be licensed subject to strict supervision conditions and a $10,000 penalty.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The Tribunal was entitled to substitute its opinion for that of the FSRA and properly weighed the evidence, including the respondent's positive employment record and the context of his misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an interim order requiring him to pay $45,000 per month in spousal support, arguing the motion judge erred by failing to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) for a high-income earner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's case-specific analysis of the parties' means and needs.

The court noted that the SSAGs are not strictly presumptive for incomes over $350,000 and that interim orders are entitled to significant deference.

The self-represented appellant requested an adjournment of the appeal hearing and indicated an expectation that the hearing would proceed by Zoom.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, directing that the rescheduled hearing proceed by Zoom and be peremptory to the appellant.

Costs of the day were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant, a Black municipal councillor, alleged he was subjected to racial profiling by a police officer.

After a Police Services Act (PSA) disciplinary hearing cleared the officer of misconduct, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed the applicant's human rights complaint under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the matter had been appropriately dealt with.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply or justify its departure from established Supreme Court of Canada and HRTO jurisprudence, which holds that it is generally unfair to use a PSA proceeding to bar a human rights complaint due to differences in purpose, standard of proof, and available remedies.

The HRTO decisions were set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to make an application for judicial review of an ODACC adjudicator's determination under the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a Costs Outline.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Emery J. dated May 26, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the corporate responding party and $5,000 to the individual responding parties.

A medical malpractice action arising from the failure of three emergency physicians to diagnose previable, prelabour, preterm rupture of membranes (pPPROM) at 17 weeks gestation and to refer the plaintiff to an obstetrician.

The plaintiff presented to three different emergency departments over four days with a "gush of fluid" and other symptoms consistent with ruptured membranes.

All three physicians diagnosed threatened miscarriage or second trimester bleeding instead.

The failure to diagnose and refer resulted in a delay of approximately one day before the plaintiff reached a tertiary hospital.

During that delay, the plaintiff developed septic shock, leading to amputation of her left leg below the knee, partial amputation of her right foot, kidney failure requiring transplant, stroke, compromised right arm function, and seizures.

The trial judge found that all three defendants breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the rupture of membranes and failing to immediately refer to an obstetrician.

However, only the first defendant (Dr. Cavanagh) was found liable for damages, as the evidence established that if the plaintiff had been referred on May 4, she would have been seen by an obstetrician, counselled regarding the grave risks, and would have elected to terminate the pregnancy.

Antibiotics and termination by May 5 would have prevented the septic shock and resulting injuries.

The subsequent physicians' breaches occurred too late to prevent the harm.

The court sentenced Tahir Ali for multiple drug trafficking offences, including fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine, oxycodone, and benzodiazepine, as well as possession of ammunition while subject to a weapons prohibition.

The decision reviews the devastating impact of the opioid crisis on individuals, families, and Indigenous communities in Grey-Bruce, Ontario.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including Ali’s prior record, health, and time spent in lockdown.

Drawing on recent appellate guidance, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years for the drug offences and a consecutive 6-month sentence for the weapons prohibition breach, less credit for pre-trial custody.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues of damages, interest, and costs following a summary judgment motion in a real estate breach of contract action.

The court awarded the plaintiffs an additional $3,914.60 in damages for legal expenses and carrying costs that were inadvertently omitted from the previous assessment.

Prejudgment interest was approved in the amount of $10,886.87.

Finally, because the plaintiffs obtained a judgment more favorable than their Rule 49 offer, the court awarded them partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, subject to a minor reduction.

The court considered an application to exclude drug evidence on the basis of alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The applicant, Zachary Telford, was arrested for impaired operation after being found asleep in his vehicle, and subsequently charged with possession of fentanyl and other drugs.

The court found that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the subsequent searches and demands were lawful.

The only Charter breach identified was a 20-minute delay in facilitating access to duty counsel, which was found to be minor and not to justify exclusion of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The court considered a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal case.

The enforceability of the "with cause" and "without cause" termination provisions in the plaintiff's employment contract was at issue.

The court found both provisions unenforceable because they contravened the Employment Standards Act, 2000, following the reasoning in Dufault v. The Corporation of the Township of Ignace and Perretta v. Rand A Technology Corporation.

As a result, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and a further hearing was ordered to determine damages.

This endorsement addresses the assessment of damages in a failed real estate transaction.

The court determines the appropriate date for assessing damages and evaluates expert evidence from both parties regarding the market value of the subject property.

The court prefers the evidence of the moving parties' appraiser, finding the value of the property as of August 18, 2022, to be $650,000, and awards damages accordingly.

This case involved a trial of issues arising from a motion for directions brought by the Estate of John Duncan Maltman against his daughter, Jacquelyne Playter.

The Estate sought disgorgement of funds from a non-registered TD investment account and a TD chequing account, both jointly held by the deceased and Ms. Playter.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust.

It was determined that the deceased intended Ms. Playter to beneficially receive the proceeds of the joint investment account by right of survivorship, based on clear contemporaneous banking documents and witness testimony.

Regarding the chequing account, Ms. Playter acknowledged beneficial ownership by the deceased but sought to deduct costs for her husband's services in preparing the deceased's home for sale.

The court allowed a partial deduction for these services.

The accused, Tahir Ali, was charged with multiple counts of possession of various drugs for the purpose of trafficking, unsafe storage of firearms, unlawful possession of firearms, and possession of firearms/ammunition while prohibited.

At trial, the accused admitted continuity of seized items, his weapons prohibition, and that the drugs were for trafficking.

The central issue was his knowledge and control over the seized items.

The court found that a business associated with the accused was a sham.

Based on extensive circumstantial evidence, including TDR cell phone data, cell phone downloads, personal documents, and the large quantities of drugs, the court concluded that the accused had knowing possession and control over the drugs and ammunition.

Consequently, Ali was found guilty of all drug trafficking charges and possession of ammunition while prohibited.

However, he was found not guilty of the firearms charges related to two rifles found in a Kincardine house, as the Crown failed to prove his knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt, given their location and the presence of other residents.

The plaintiff, David Steele, sued the defendant, Victor Bicknese, for injuries sustained after falling through broken wooden slats in the defendant's barn.

The plaintiff, a 74-year-old employee, suffered an odontoid fracture (cervical spine injury) and other chronic symptoms.

The court found the defendant breached his duty of care under section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability Act by failing to maintain a reasonably safe premises and having no system for inspecting or repairing broken slats, which were known to break regularly.

The court found no contributory negligence by the plaintiff, despite his awareness of the broken slats, due to the defendant's fundamental obligation to provide a safe workplace and the impracticality of avoiding hazards while working.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost income and general damages for pain and suffering.

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the Applicant was found to have acted unreasonably and in bad faith by disrupting a three-year status quo regarding child custody, primarily to avoid child support payments.

The Respondent was successful on the motion and sought full recovery costs.

The court found full recovery costs appropriate due to the Applicant's conduct but reduced the claimed amount from $11,400 to $9,000 plus H.S.T., rejecting the Applicant's impecuniosity argument given his strategic actions.

Michael Paul Taylor was found guilty of impaired operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm (two counts), dangerous operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm (two counts), and refusing to submit to an evaluation.

The court rejected the Kienapple principle application, finding distinct elements for impaired and dangerous driving.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors, including the severe, life-altering injuries to two victims, the commercial nature of the vehicle, and the offender's extensive criminal and driving record.

Mitigating factors included intergenerational abuse from his Indigenous background (Gladue principles) and his chronic pain.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment for the driving offences, plus a consecutive 6 months for refusing the drug test, a 15.5-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.