Kelly Hayden

The applicant donor pledged $1 million to the respondent charity to develop a workplace mental health program, payable in three installments.

After paying the first installment, the applicant became dissatisfied with the program's direction, withheld the second installment, and demanded a refund.

The applicant then applied under section 6 of the Charities Accounting Act for an order directing the Public Guardian and Trustee to investigate the charity's use of the funds.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding the program's vision and timeline constituted a private interest rather than a public interest.

The court noted there was no evidence of financial mismanagement to justify the costly and disruptive investigation.

The applicants requested that the judge recuse himself from the present application, arguing that an endorsement he made in a motion four years ago involving the individual applicant demonstrated an apprehension of bias.

The judge reviewed the prior endorsement and the test for apprehension of bias, noting that the reasonable person is vested with knowledge of the judicial process.

The judge concluded that a reasonably informed reader would not find an adverse view had been formed, as the prior endorsement explicitly stated no fault was found with either side.

The recusal request was dismissed.

The College brought a motion to stay discipline proceedings against the member, who was alleged to have committed professional misconduct.

The member signed an Undertaking and Surrender Agreement, agreeing to surrender his certificate of registration, never practice traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture again in North America, and pay $750 towards investigation costs.

The Discipline Committee found it in the public interest to grant the motion and stayed the proceedings in accordance with the agreement.

The College brought a motion to stay discipline proceedings against the member.

The member's certificate of registration had already been revoked in a prior proceeding involving sexual abuse.

The Discipline Committee granted the stay, finding it was not in the public interest to expend resources on a new hearing when the member was already revoked, with the condition that the stay could be lifted if the member ever applied for a new certificate.

The College brought a motion to stay discipline proceedings against the member, who was alleged to have used unauthorized specialization terms and practiced complementary medicine on animals in contravention of the Veterinarians Act.

The member signed an Undertaking and Surrender Agreement, agreeing to surrender his Certificate of Registration, never practice or use restricted titles in Canada again, and pay $750 in costs.

The Discipline Committee found that granting the stay was in the public interest, as the public is protected by the terms of the Agreement and the transparency of the process.

Sobeys appealed a decision finding it contractually obligated to directly fund a pension plan deficit following the termination of a warehousing and transportation agreement with Tibbett.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the parties had entered into a new agreement for Sobeys to assume direct responsibility for the deficit, that Tibbett had acted with due diligence, and that the claim was not statute-barred because Tibbett was not notified of Sobeys' refusal to fund the deficit until 2013.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an omnibus motion for certification, settlement approval, class counsel fees, and representative plaintiff honoraria in a class action against 407 ETR.

The action alleged that 407 ETR unlawfully used the plate denial remedy against insolvent vehicle owners, contrary to the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes and approved a settlement fund of $7,965,800, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's 30% contingency fee and a $10,000 honorarium for each of the three representative plaintiffs.