Karen Jones

The appellant, a chiropractor, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of 11 acts of professional misconduct, imposing a 15-month suspension, and ordering costs of over $690,000.

The misconduct involved improper block fee billing, unauthorized disclosure of personal health information to a bank during a payment dispute, failing to provide a medical report in a reasonable time, and issuing false or misleading accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on liability and penalty, finding no errors in the Panel's procedural rulings, evidentiary decisions, or assessment of the evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, finding the Panel failed to adequately consider the principle of proportionality, and reduced the costs award to $450,000.

A case conference endorsement setting the timetable for an appeal and a motion to intervene by a proposed intervenor.

The court also directed that the appellant's 2022 judicial review application, which challenges the appointment of the discipline committee Chair under the Health Professions Procedural Code, be heard together with the appeal to avoid inefficiency.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend the March 29, 2021 decision by the band council to cancel the scheduled April 4, 2021 election.

The court found that the applicant had established a strong prima facie case that the cancellation decision was made without broad community consensus, causing irreparable harm through the disenfranchisement of voters.

The balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The injunction was granted, suspending the cancellation and ordering the election process to resume.

The plaintiffs, descendants of the historic Chacachas and Kakisiwew Indian Bands, sought declarations that their respective bands were unlawfully amalgamated into the Ochapowace Indian Band by the Crown in 1884.

The Federal Court held that the amalgamation was unlawful, as the Crown failed to obtain the consent of the bands in breach of its fiduciary duties and treaty obligations.

The Court granted declaratory relief regarding the unlawful amalgamation, but found that claims for treaty land and compensation were barred by estoppel and limitation periods.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a CCAA judge's decision dismissing their motion to reinstate other post-employment benefits (OPEBs) to retirees of U.S. Steel Canada Inc. The CCAA judge had dismissed the motion but ordered a one-time payment of $2.7 million towards benefits.

The Court of Appeal applied the stringent test for leave to appeal in CCAA proceedings and found no prima facie merit to the appeal.

The court emphasized the broad discretion of the CCAA judge and the fact-specific nature of the decision, which did not raise issues of significance to insolvency practice.

Leave to appeal was denied with costs fixed at $2,500.

The moving party, a chiropractor, sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that upheld findings of professional misconduct and a costs award against him.

The Court of Appeal applied the test for extending time, focusing on the merits of the proposed appeal.

Finding that the proposed appeals regarding costs, liability, and penalty lacked merit and did not raise an arguable question of law or matter of public importance, the court dismissed the motion for an extension of time.

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), sought approval for a second key employee retention plan (KERP 2), while a group of unions and representative counsel (Moving Parties) sought an order to terminate the suspension of other post-employment benefits (OPEBs).

The court granted the KERP 2 motion, finding it fair and reasonable for business stability and restructuring efforts.

The OPEB motion was denied, as the court found no fundamental improvement in USSC's profitability to warrant OPEB reinstatement, and that USSC's proposed one-time contribution of $2.7 million to a transition fund for retired employees appropriately balanced competing interests during the ongoing sales and investor solicitation process (SISP).

The appellant chiropractor appealed the liability, penalty, and costs decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario.

The appellant had been found guilty of professional misconduct for sending threatening emails to a colleague who had previously complained about him, and for failing to cooperate with the College's investigation.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct regarding the inappropriate communications and the initial failure to cooperate, but set aside the finding that the appellant failed to cooperate after an investigator was appointed.

The court upheld the penalty, which included a 12-month suspension and a $10,000 fine.

A majority of the court also upheld the costs award of $166,194.50 against the appellant, finding it reasonable given the circumstances of the hearing.

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt and a sentence of six months' house arrest for breaching a 2006 consent order prohibiting him from practicing chiropractic or using the title of chiropractor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the contempt finding, noting the appellant had consented to proceed without viva voce evidence and there was overwhelming evidence of his breach.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding the motion judge properly considered the principle of least restrictive sanction given the appellant's ongoing defiance and the need for public protection.

The committal order was varied on consent to allow the appellant to show cause before incarceration.

Following the dismissal of an application for leave to appeal from a decision of a professional regulator, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and filed submissions that did not address the costs issue and failed to comply with the court’s directions.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the court found the regulator’s request for $3,500 to be reasonable and significantly less than the actual costs incurred.

The court awarded the requested amount of costs to the regulator.

A vexatious litigant sought leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to commence an appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision of the Executive Committee of a professional regulatory college refusing to reinstate his licence.

The court held that no statutory right of appeal exists from such a decision under the governing legislation, rendering the proposed proceeding an abuse of process.

The applicant’s extensive history of abusive litigation conduct, unpaid costs orders, and misleading statements to courts was also considered in assessing whether leave should be granted.

The court found there were no reasonable grounds for the proposed proceeding and that allowing it would be contrary to the interests of justice.

Leave to commence the proceeding was refused and further filing restrictions in the Toronto Region were imposed.

In a joint cross-border insolvency trial concerning the allocation of approximately $7.3 billion in lockbox funds from the sale of global business lines and residual intellectual property, the court interpreted the Master R&D Agreement as an operating transfer-pricing document that granted limited licence rights but did not govern post-insolvency allocation.

The court rejected both the position that one Canadian debtor owned all sale proceeds by virtue of legal title and the position that the EMEA debtors jointly owned all intellectual property by operation of law.

Applying unjust enrichment principles and the broad remedial jurisdiction available in CCAA proceedings, the court held that a just result required a pro rata allocation among debtor estates based on allowed claims.

The court further directed that duplicate claims be counted only once for allocation purposes, that intercompany claims be included, and that interim distribution proposals be brought forward.

In a civil contempt sentencing arising from repeated breaches of an order prohibiting unauthorized chiropractic practice, the court held that denunciation, deterrence, public protection, and proportionality required a serious sanction.

Although the respondent had taken some late steps to purge the contempt and raised caregiving and health concerns, the court found that a suspended disposition would be wholly inadequate given the prolonged and defiant misconduct.

A six-month conditional sentence with house arrest, community service, strict compliance terms, and monitoring provisions was imposed.

The court also ordered sequestration of the respondent's office and equipment and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Discipline Committee Panel, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a former patient.

The panel's decision was split 3-2, with the minority finding the sexual abuse allegations unproven.

The appellant argued the majority's credibility assessments and factual findings were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the majority's findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and entitled to deference.

The applicant regulatory body brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching a prior court order prohibiting him from representing himself as a chiropractor or performing controlled acts associated with chiropractic practice.

The respondent had previously admitted breaches of the same order in earlier contempt proceedings and agreed to comply with settlement terms requiring immediate cessation of practice and removal of promotional materials.

Evidence including patient files, appointment records, and affidavits from patients established beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent continued operating a chiropractic practice and using the title “doctor” or “D.C.” in connection with providing health services.

The court found the respondent knowingly and wilfully breached the 2006 order and continued to hold himself out as a chiropractor.

A finding of contempt was entered, with a further hearing to determine penalty and costs.

The applicant, who was previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence a civil proceeding against the Ontario College of Pharmacists and its employees.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed proceeding was an abuse of process as it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on final disciplinary decisions.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish reasonable grounds for the proceeding, and the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The self-represented appellant purported to appeal a costs-only order following the dismissal of his underlying action.

The Court of Appeal held that there is no right of appeal from a costs order and that leave is required.

Treating the materials as an application for leave to appeal costs, the Court refused leave and awarded costs of $1,000 to each of the four responding groups.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to attend a mandatory Record Keeping Workshop, and the resulting 60-day suspension.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction because it did not require proof of a formal Council resolution making the workshop mandatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that official College notices were sufficient evidence that attendance was mandatory, especially since the appellant never opened his mail from the College.

The penalty was upheld as reasonable given the appellant's history of ignoring College communications.

The moving party sought to set aside three orders made by the Deputy Registrar dismissing his appeals for failing to perfect them.

The underlying orders had struck out the moving party's claims against various defendants, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission, former employers, and their lawyers, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, finding that the moving party's delay contributed to the failure to perfect and that the proposed appeals had no reasonable prospect of success, as the OHRC cannot be sued, responses to OHRC complaints are protected by absolute privilege, and the pleadings failed to disclose known causes of action.

The respondent chiropractor commenced treating his cohabiting partner as a patient.

The discipline committee found him guilty of professional misconduct by sexual abuse under the Health Professions Procedural Code, which mandates a five-year licence revocation for sexual intercourse with a patient.

The Divisional Court set aside the decision, ruling that the committee must determine whether the sexual activity arose out of the spousal relationship or the professional-patient relationship.

The Court of Appeal allowed the College's appeal, holding that the Code requires no such inquiry; the offence is complete upon the concurrence of a sexual relationship and a health care professional-patient relationship.