Joshua Ryan Hanet

The appellants appealed a certification order for a class action arising from an infection control lapse at an endoscopy clinic.

The plaintiff sought compensation for the enhanced risk of infection and the psychological trauma of receiving a public health notification, despite testing negative for any blood-borne diseases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order, finding that a claim for damages based solely on an increased risk of harm, without actual injury, is not a legally viable cause of action.

Fletcher’s Fields Limited (FFL) sought the court's opinion and direction regarding the sale of its rugby fields and the distribution of proceeds.

FFL argued the fields were held in a non-charitable purpose trust for promoting rugby.

The court confirmed the existence and validity of this non-charitable purpose trust, finding that FFL held the fields as trustee for the promotion and playing of rugby.

The court also determined that FFL was unambiguously entitled to the sale proceeds and, upon dissolution, was obliged and entitled to distribute the remaining net proceeds to its shareholders, all of whom are not-for-profit corporations, as a return of share capital.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on issues including whether the motion judge erred by certifying liability for increased risk, causation and damages, whether a class proceeding remains the preferable procedure, and whether a family class should have been certified.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against an endoscopy clinic and its operator following a public health notice regarding infection control lapses.

The notice advised former patients to be tested for blood-borne diseases.

The plaintiff, who tested negative, sought compensation for exposure to enhanced risk of infection, shock, trauma, and inconvenience.

The court found that the claims raised genuine common issues, including duty of care, standard of care, and foreseeability of harm.

The court also determined that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure for resolving the claims of the 6,800 affected individuals.

The certification motion was granted.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to certify a proposed class action against a medical clinic for infection control lapses during endoscopies.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that the appellant failed to establish an identifiable class of two or more people who suffered harm.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by requiring evidence of actual harm to multiple people at the certification stage, rather than just an objective basis to identify class members.

The matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine the remaining certification criteria.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the approval of a settlement in three consolidated class actions against three immigration lawyers for professional negligence.

The class members were Roma refugee claimants from Hungary whose applications failed or did not proceed while represented by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement of $500,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $181,500 and a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants, who operated an endoscopy clinic where an infection control lapse occurred.

The proposed class included patients who underwent procedures between 2002 and 2011.

Despite extensive public notification by public health authorities, the plaintiff could only identify one other potential class member, whose medical issues lacked expert evidence linking them to the clinic.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish some basis in fact for the existence of an identifiable class of two or more persons.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a news release of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Committee decisions that the plaintiffs sought to introduce at a certification motion.

The document was inadmissible under the Regulated Health Professionals Act.

The plaintiffs refused to withdraw the document until the eve of the hearing.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct unreasonable and awarded the defendants $2,500 in partial indemnity costs for the motion.

The appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons finding her guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence following the death of a patient who underwent high-volume liposuction.

The Committee found she breached standards of practice regarding extraction volumes, informed consent, and post-operative care, and that her website advertising violated regulations banning testimonials and superlatives.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Committee's findings on the standard of practice, its evidentiary rulings, and its conclusion that the advertising ban was a justified limit on freedom of expression under s. 1 of the Charter.

The penalty restricting her practice to acting as a surgical assistant in a hospital was also upheld as reasonable.

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was suspended for two years followed by indefinite restrictions after a discipline committee found her incompetent following a patient's death during liposuction, brought a motion to stay the penalty order pending her appeal.

She sought to perform non-surgical cosmetic procedures in the interim.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test and dismissed the motion.

While the appeal raised a serious issue, the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm, as financial loss alone is insufficient.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the court found that allowing the moving party to perform or supervise controlled acts would pose a risk to public safety and undermine public confidence in the medical profession's regulatory process.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favour of the respondents, her former solicitors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim was without merit and barred by the principle of res judicata, as a previous action against the same defendants had already been dismissed.

The court also dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence and declined to award costs.