3 total
Judicial review of HPARB decision dismissed; failure to explicitly reference expert report did not render decision unreasonable.
The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which confirmed an administrative disposition imposed by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Royal College of Dentists.
The applicant argued that the ICRC's failure to explicitly consider an expert report rendered its decision unreasonable.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the failure to reference the report was not a sufficiently serious shortcoming to undermine the justification, intelligibility, and transparency of the ICRC's decision.
The court deferred to HPARB's assessment that the ICRC had considered all records obtained during its investigation.
The court approved a $500,000 settlement and a pre-funded structured settlement for a party under disability.
This motion sought court approval of proposed settlements totaling $500,000 for tort and accident benefits claims on behalf of a party under disability who sustained a traumatic brain injury in a pedestrian-motor vehicle accident.
The court approved both the tort settlement of $60,000, finding it reasonable given uncertain liability and pre-accident conditions, and the accident benefits settlement of $440,000.
The court also approved the solicitor's reduced fees and a structured settlement of $325,000, emphasizing the importance of pre-funding structured settlements to guarantee rates and ensure certainty for the party under disability.
Appeals quashed for lack of jurisdiction as the orders appealed from required no payment.
The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to amend a judgment that approved an infant settlement, and sought leave to extend the time to appeal the original judgment.
The Divisional Court quashed the appeals, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act because the orders appealed from did not require payment of any amount by the appellant, and no leave to appeal had been granted.
