Kathy Francine Chittley-Young

The plaintiff, an internationally trained physician employed by a pain management clinic, was terminated after a complaint involving him was made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, and the defendant asserted termination for cause based on evidence from the CPSO.

The plaintiff moved to strike portions of the statement of defence, arguing they contravened the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (RHPA).

The court partially granted the motion, striking references to evidence provided by the CPSO, as such documents are inadmissible in civil proceedings under s. 36(3) of the RHPA.

However, the court allowed the defendant leave to amend its defence.

Costs were fixed due to mixed success.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of an Employment Standards proceeding regarding his termination and severance pay.

The respondents opposed reactivation and requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation and denied the request to dismiss, finding that the Employment Standards Officer only determined whether the applicant's conduct amounted to wilful misconduct disentitling him to severance, and did not address or make findings inconsistent with the human rights allegations.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's concurrent Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour.

Both proceedings arose from the termination of the applicant's employment and sought monetary damages.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the significant overlap in issues and the potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motions judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for injuries sustained in a horse-related accident.

The appellants argued there were genuine issues for trial regarding whether the appellant intentionally held onto the lead shank due to the premises' condition, and whether the horse owners had prior knowledge of the horse's dangerousness.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant's affidavit and evidence of the horse's breed and prior incidents created genuine issues for trial.

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's self-serving affidavit and hearsay evidence insufficient to survive summary judgment.