Jordan Shaun Glick

The Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA) brought an urgent application seeking an order for In Touch Retirement Living for Vegetarians/Vegans Inc. and Elaine Lindo (the Respondents) to cease operating as an unlicensed retirement home.

The Respondents filed a cross-application challenging the enforcement of the Retirement Homes Act, 2010 on Charter grounds and requesting consideration for a licence.

The court granted the RHRA's application, finding a continuous breach of the Act and dismissing the cross-application due to procedural deficiencies and lack of legal merit for the Charter claims.

Ancillary relief was also granted to ensure the safe transfer of residents.

The Member, a registered chiropodist, admitted to professional misconduct for implanting unapproved stents of his own design into patients' feet instead of the Health Canada-approved stents they had consented to receive.

The Member also failed to keep adequate patient records.

The Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropodists of Ontario accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, issued a reprimand, and ordered the Member to pay $30,000 in costs.

The Member, a registered chiropodist, faced allegations of professional misconduct including practicing at unauthorized locations, overprescribing orthotics and orthopedic shoes, failing to maintain adequate patient records, and submitting inaccurate invoices to insurers.

The Member admitted to the allegations and the Discipline Committee found that his conduct constituted professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an 8-month suspension (with one month remitted upon completion of an ethics course), a 9-month restriction on prescribing and dispensing orthotics and footwear, 15 months of practice supervision, a reprimand, and $15,000 in costs to the College.

The Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority ordered the revocation of the appellant's licence to operate a retirement home due to financial mismanagement and allegations of elder financial abuse.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was no longer competent to operate the home responsibly, having accumulated over $900,000 in debt and defaulted on mortgages and taxes.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the appellant financially abused a vulnerable resident by repeatedly soliciting interest-free loans.

The Tribunal rescinded the Registrar's immediate order but substituted its own decision directing the revocation of the licence with a delayed effective date to allow the first mortgagee to assume operations and ensure a smooth transition for the residents.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct, including failing to keep adequate records, failing to perform patient assessments, and submitting false or misleading insurance claims to Great West Life for orthotics and orthopedic shoes.

The Member admitted to the allegations and entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of an ethics course), a two-year period of practice supervision, a reprimand, and $15,000 in costs.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Reconsideration Order.

The IPC had ordered the LCBO to cease collecting the personal information of wine club members when processing special orders, finding the practice contravened s. 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The LCBO argued the IPC's order forced it to violate liquor laws and that the IPC applied an unreasonably strict test for 'necessity' under FIPPA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the IPC's decision was reasonable, the LCBO was exempt from the relevant liquor law prohibitions, and the IPC correctly applied the established legal test for necessity.

The appellants sought a stay of an Order to Pay an Administrative Penalty of $10,000 issued by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority for allegedly operating an unlicensed retirement home.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as the penalty funds would be held and reimbursed if the appeal succeeded.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience and public interest weighed against granting a stay, given the regulatory scheme's focus on protecting vulnerable residents.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Society of Upper Canada's Compensation Fund Committee, which denied their claims for compensation following the misappropriation of funds by their lawyer.

The Committee found that the lawyer had received the funds in the capacity of a banker rather than a lawyer, and thus the losses were not in connection with his professional business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Committee's interpretation of the Law Society Act and its application of the Guidelines were reasonable.

The applicant appealed the Registrar's decision to refuse a licence to operate a retirement home.

The Registrar cited concerns including resident neglect, lack of required policies, untrained staff, and the owner's attempts to mislead inspectors and the regulator.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate competence to operate the home responsibly and with honesty and integrity, as required by section 35 of the Retirement Homes Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse the licence.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) order directing it to cease collecting personal information from wine club members and to destroy previously collected information.

The LCBO argued the IPC breached procedural fairness by issuing the order without prior notice that such a remedy was being contemplated.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the IPC failed to provide adequate notice of the potential consequences of the privacy complaint investigation, thereby depriving the LCBO of a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue of remedy.

The IPC's order was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of the LCBO's decision to award an agency store authorization to a competitor following a Request for Proposal process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the LCBO's decision was a commercial arrangement not subject to judicial review, as it did not involve the exercise of a statutory power of decision and lacked a sufficient public interest element.

In the alternative, the Court found that the procurement process was fair and the LCBO's decision was reasonable.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his medical license and a costs order of $95,812 imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons for sexual misconduct involving three young boys.

The appellant, joined by intervenors, also challenged the constitutionality of the College investigator's summons power under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, arguing it violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the summons power was constitutional in the regulatory context, the Committee had jurisdiction to hear the Charter challenge, and the delay in proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Court upheld the Committee's factual findings, penalty, and costs order as reasonable.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the claimant, R.M., brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by the appellant, Dr. Sazant.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Board that extended the time for R.M. to file a compensation claim for alleged sexual assaults.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that section 23 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act only permits appeals from final decisions, not interlocutory orders.

The Court further held that even if the proceeding were converted to a judicial review application, it would be stayed as premature to avoid fragmenting the administrative process.

The appellant was convicted ex parte of driving while his licence was suspended and sentenced to 10 days in jail and a $7,500 fine.

He appealed, arguing that the ex parte trial provisions of the Provincial Offences Act violated his Charter rights under ss. 7 and 11(d).

The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the ex parte trial provisions, finding that they merely provide a mechanism for proceeding when a defendant fails to appear.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the appellant offered no valid explanation for his non-attendance.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the fine was reduced to the statutory minimum of $5,000 because the trial judge provided no reasons for exceeding the minimum requested by the prosecutor.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing his arrest was unlawful and merely a ruse to search his backpack.

He also argued the trial judge failed to provide clear reasons for accepting one officer's evidence over another's.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge explicitly rejected the appellant's position and had a legitimate basis for the arrest.

The Court further held that there was likely no section 8 Charter breach regarding the backpack search, and even if there was, the evidence was properly admitted under section 24(2) applying the Grant framework.

The appellants, husband and wife, were convicted of second degree murder in the death of their seven-year-old son, who died following months of severe physical abuse.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding the cause of death and challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on aiding and abetting, out-of-court statements, and propensity reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the fresh evidence did not meet the required cogency threshold to affect the verdict, particularly given the tactical decision not to call such evidence at trial.

The Court also found no reversible errors in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and upheld the 18-year parole ineligibility period for the stepmother.

The appellant was driving a rented SUV when he was pulled over by a police officer who mistakenly believed the vehicle required a front licence plate.

Despite realizing his error, the officer continued the detention, discovered the appellant's licence was suspended, arrested him, and searched the vehicle, finding 35 kg of cocaine.

The trial judge found breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying the revised s. 24(2) framework from R. v. Grant.

The Court held that the police conduct was a brazen and flagrant disregard for Charter rights, aggravated by misleading testimony, and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was excluded and an acquittal entered.

The appellant was convicted of possession of Ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking and production of Ecstasy.

During the investigation, police obtained a general warrant under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code to conduct repeated covert entries and searches of a commercial office space and storage units.

The appellant appealed the convictions, arguing that the general warrant violated his s. 8 Charter rights because s. 487.01 does not authorize repeated covert entries and the statutory requirements were not met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a covert entry and search is an investigative technique under s. 487.01, no other provision authorized the technique, and the warrant was in the best interests of the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed his manslaughter conviction and eight-year sentence arising from a beating death during a home invasion robbery.

The Crown's case relied heavily on an unsavoury witness who testified that the appellant and a co-accused went to the deceased's house and returned making incriminating statements.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding confirmatory evidence, reasonable doubt, party liability, and by characterizing another witness's evidence as 'useless'.

The Court of Appeal found the jury charge functionally appropriate and fundamentally fair, concluding that any errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of a joint enterprise robbery.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder after shooting his former friend and business partner.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of the deceased's propensity for violence and habit of carrying a gun, and by failing to instruct the jury on self-defence and provocation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the excluded evidence's prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, and correctly determined there was no air of reality to the defences of self-defence or provocation.