I. Smith

The appellant, a nurse practitioner, appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The Committee found she had improperly issued 396 COVID-19 vaccine medical exemption letters to clients who merely watched an informational slide presentation.

The appellant argued she was acting as an educator providing informed consent and relying on public health directives.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's conclusion that the letters were medical exemptions and that the appellant breached multiple standards of practice.

The court also dismissed allegations of procedural fairness and bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) regarding his complaint against two police officers.

The applicant alleged the Director's decision was procedurally unfair due to a lack of disclosure and unreasonable due to factual inaccuracies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant received adequate procedural fairness as he was provided with the information the Director relied upon.

The court also held that the Director's decision was reasonable, noting that the applicant's arguments amounted to minor missteps that did not undermine the substance of the decision.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they unjustifiably terminated and repudiated a residential renovation contract.

The trial judge awarded the respondent contractor $105,804.92 plus costs.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the trial judge's exclusion of their proposed expert, interpretation of the contract, factual findings on completion percentage, and credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also denied.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its breach of contract and construction lien claims and granting the respondent's counterclaim for fraud relating to a real estate development project.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by allowing an amendment to plead fraud without formal leave under the Construction Act, admitting propensity evidence, misapprehending evidence of fraud, and failing to meaningfully analyze the breach of contract claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge implicitly granted leave for the amendment on consent, properly used past misconduct for credibility assessment rather than propensity, and made factual findings of fraud and fundamental breach that were free from palpable and overriding error.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) not to proceed with his complaint against his former doctor.

The applicant alleged the doctor improperly accessed and added to his medical record after he issued a 'lockbox' directive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's decision reasonable as the doctor was authorized to document patient encounters under professional standards pursuant to s. 19(2) of PHIPA.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant was given a full opportunity to respond to the IPC's preliminary views.

The appellant, a provincial women's softball association, appealed a decision ordering it to grant membership to the respondent local baseball association.

The respondent's application had been denied based on operational rules and concerns about player poaching, despite meeting the mandatory membership criteria set out in the appellant's by-laws.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the by-laws.

The court affirmed that the appellant could not use operational rules or unwritten policies to deny membership to an applicant that met the express by-law criteria.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded zero net damages following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by excluding her proposed medical expert, a neurologist, and by refusing to leave the issues of loss of competitive advantage and medical expenses to the jury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's exercise of her gatekeeper function to exclude the expert for lacking objectivity, nor in her conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to put the disputed damages questions to the jury.