J. Thomas Curry

The Law Society brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision of an Appeal Panel that had quashed her appeal of a Hearing Panel's decision to recuse itself.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the decision appealed from was interlocutory and that the statutory right of appeal under the Law Society Act only applies to final decisions or orders.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding that the parties had not reached a binding agreement regarding the purchase and development of a commercial property.

The trial judge concluded that the parties only had an unenforceable agreement to agree, as they had agreed on the ownership ratio but not on other essential matters, which were to be dealt with in an unexecuted shareholders agreement.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sued her former family law lawyer for negligence, alleging he failed to adequately protect her equalization claim against her husband, who was a known flight risk.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that while the lawyer breached the standard of care in some respects, his recommendation to settle was not an 'egregious error' and his delays did not cause the appellant's loss.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred by applying the 'egregious error' test instead of the standard of reasonableness, and by using a segmented time grid analysis that failed to assess the lawyer's overall failure to advance the case to trial.

The appellant sought to set aside a separation agreement, alleging mistakes, material non-disclosure, and an unfair process.

The trial judge dismissed the application but rectified the agreement to account for a hidden gambling account.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his process and in failing to set aside the agreement based on errors in business valuation, income calculation, and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive appeal, finding the parties had freely negotiated the agreement with full disclosure, but allowed the appeal in part to reduce the trial costs awarded to the respondent from a substantial to a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant, operator of the Highway 407 toll road, sought an order of mandamus compelling the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to refuse to validate or issue vehicle permits for individuals who failed to pay tolls.

The Registrar had refused to act, arguing that he had a duty to ensure the applicant complied with the statutory scheme and that individuals were not wrongly denied plate renewals.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Highway 407 Act imposes a mandatory duty on the Registrar to deny permits upon receiving notice of non-payment.

The court held that the Registrar has no discretion or oversight role to look behind the notices or compliance certificates, and declined to exercise its residual discretion to refuse mandamus.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles sought leave to file a factum exceeding the prescribed page limit by an additional ten pages, citing the complexity of the differing legal and factual conclusions.

The court reluctantly granted the request, expecting it might assist the panel.

Consequently, the court also granted the applicant leave to file a reply factum of up to 15 pages, leaving the issue of costs regarding the extended facta to the panel.

The Minister of Transportation appealed a final declaratory judgment interpreting a 60-day cure period provision in the Highway 407 Concession and Ground Lease Agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge lacked jurisdiction to grant a final declaration, as the agreement's comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism reserved such interpretations for an arbitrator.

However, the court found the application judge did have jurisdiction to grant an interim order preserving the parties' rights pending arbitration.

The appeal was allowed and the judgment set aside.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario released an addendum on costs following an appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $10,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The deceased's estate brought a medical malpractice action against the appellant doctor for failing to diagnose and treat bladder cancer.

The action was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period in s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

The estate pleaded that the doctor fraudulently concealed his negligence by lying to the family about having recommended radical treatment.

The doctor moved to strike the claim as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision dismissing the motion, finding that the common law doctrine of fraudulent concealment can toll the limitation period in s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act, and that the facts as pleaded were capable of supporting a finding of fraudulent concealment.

The appellant physician appealed a disciplinary decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

In this partial dissent, Greer J. disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold the Complaints Committee's finding of incompetence.

Greer J. concluded that while the physician may have been negligent or shown a serious lack of judgment regarding record-keeping and boundary issues, his conduct did not meet the statutory definition of incompetence under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, as there was no evidence he was unfit to continue practicing.

The appellant psychiatrist appealed a finding of incompetence and the subsequent penalty imposed by the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The committee found the appellant incompetent due to severe deficiencies in record keeping and poor judgment in treating complex psychiatric patients.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of incompetence, noting the committee's specialized expertise and the cumulative effect of the appellant's conduct.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding penalty, finding the 30-month suspension and strict practice restrictions excessive.

The Court substituted a less restrictive penalty involving video monitoring, a full-time secretary, and practice supervision.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pending his appeal.

The Committee had found him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, imposing a 30-month suspension and practice restrictions.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, finding a serious issue regarding the proportionality of the penalty, irreparable harm due to the ongoing suspension and professional damage, and that the balance of convenience favoured a conditional stay.

The stay was granted on the same terms, conditions, and limitations that the Discipline Committee had ordered for his return to practice.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against an obstetrician following a birth injury that resulted in the infant suffering from cerebral palsy.

The appellants argued the obstetrician breached the standard of care by failing to prepare for an immediate caesarean section before attempting a mid-forceps delivery, and by failing to deliver the baby within ten minutes of declaring a dire emergency.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the standard of care only required an operating room to be immediately available, and that the obstetrician acted as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances.

The appellants appealed three findings of contempt made by the lower court.

The Court of Appeal set aside all three findings.

The first finding had already been adjudicated by another judge.

The second finding could not stand due to a lack of clarity in a Divisional Court order and the appellants' reliance on counsel's advice.

The third finding could not stand due to conflicting evidence regarding the reason for non-attendance.

The appeal was allowed and the findings of contempt were set aside, though the respondent was awarded costs due to the appellants' conduct.

Medical negligence appeal arising from a catastrophic birth injury after an emergency Caesarean section.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings on negligence and causation, numerous evidentiary rulings concerning expert reports, foundational facts, discovery corrections, and cross-examination, and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based largely on the trial judge's handling of extreme incivility by defence counsel during a 165-day trial.

The Court of Appeal held there was ample evidence supporting the findings that no negligence was proven and that the injury was caused by a sudden placental abruption.

It further held that virtually all evidentiary rulings were correct, any errors were inconsequential, and an informed observer would not apprehend bias.

The appeal was dismissed, but the trial judgment was varied so the dismissal was without costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its solicitor's negligence action as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was barred from relitigating the previously determined issue that recission was unavailable in the underlying commercial action, and therefore could not maintain negligence allegations premised on the solicitor's failure to plead recission.

However, the court accepted that the statement of claim also contained distinct negligence allegations unrelated to recission.

The appeal was allowed in part, the recission-based claims remained barred, and the remaining negligence claims were permitted to proceed.

No costs were awarded because success was divided.