Kristina Yeretsian

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave to continue her action against the Crown for alleged failure to supervise the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.

She also sought default judgment.

The court dismissed both motions.

The noting in default was invalid and had been set aside.

The action against the Crown lacked reasonable grounds because the Crown is not vicariously liable for the College's actions.

Furthermore, the action was an abuse of process, representing a collateral attack on professional disciplinary proceedings that the applicant had already unsuccessfully appealed.

The Superintendent of Career Colleges requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that lifted a Notice of Immediate Suspension and ordered the Superintendent not to carry out a Notice of Proposal to Revoke the appellant's registration as a career college.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator made errors of law and fact by making contradictory findings regarding the appellant's falsification of student training records and by improperly reading an 'intent to defraud' requirement into the strict compliance provisions of the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The original decision was cancelled and a rehearing was ordered.

The moving parties brought motions to quash part of an application for judicial review for lack of jurisdiction and to strike out certain expert evidence.

The underlying application challenged a decision by the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the Abitibi River Water Management Plan and sought a declaration that the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act regime is unconstitutional for failing to trigger the duty to consult.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to hear the broad constitutional challenge and transferred that portion of the application to the Superior Court.

The motion to strike evidence was adjourned to the panel hearing the judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act.

The Director had concluded that the Act was not engaged by agreements between the University of Windsor and student groups regarding protest encampments, which included a provision limiting institutional academic agreements with Israeli universities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Director's conclusion that the University was not 'engaging in business' under the Act to be reasonable.

The court also upheld the Director's alternative finding that the agreements did not mandate a refusal to employ or promote, as required by section 4(1)3(ii) of the Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to refer an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the doctrine of exhaustion.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review should not fragment ongoing administrative processes, and the merits of the proposed amendment would be properly decided by the Tribunal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a tribunal decision that imposed a 30-day suspension and conditions on a liquor licence rather than revoking it.

The tribunal found the licensee had breached conditions and failed to facilitate an inspection, but concluded a suspension was appropriate given the principal's health issues and lack of prior warnings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal's penalty and reliance on the public interest were reasonable.

This decision addresses summary judgment motions by the Crown defendants and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action brought by M.V. following her acquittal on extortion charges.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing M.V.'s claims for false arrest and Charter breaches as statute-barred, but allowed her claims for negligent investigation and negligence to proceed to trial, finding the limitation period for those claims began only upon her acquittal.

The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the existence of reasonable and probable grounds could be determined on the record, holding that the defendants had not met their burden on summary judgment.

This decision addresses motions for partial summary judgment brought by the Crown and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action by Keith and Marisa Hobbs.

The court considers whether the plaintiffs' claims are statute-barred by limitation periods, and whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the presence of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and prosecution.

The court grants partial summary judgment dismissing the false arrest and certain Charter claims as time-barred, but allows claims for negligent investigation, negligence, discrimination, intentional infliction of mental distress, and defamation to proceed to trial.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario brought a motion for substituted service of a notice of appeal and certificate respecting evidence on the respondent, the sole officer and director of a corporate licensee.

The appeal concerned a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the proposed revocation of a liquor licence.

The court found that the Registrar had made comprehensive but unsuccessful efforts to serve the respondent personally and that the respondent was likely aware of the appeal.

The motion for substituted service was granted.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for a forfeiture order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, regarding $48,575 in Canadian currency seized by police.

The Attorney General argued the currency was proceeds and/or an instrument of unlawful activity.

An interested party, Mathew Ross-Young, claimed the funds were legitimate life savings and sought dismissal of the application.

The court, applying the balance of probabilities standard, found the currency to be proceeds and an instrument of unlawful activity, citing suspicious circumstances including large bundled cash, proximity to drugs and drug paraphernalia, inconsistent explanations from the interested party, and a lack of credible financial records.

The court emphasized that forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act is a civil matter not requiring criminal charges or convictions, and that police opinion evidence is admissible.

The court found no "interests of justice" considerations to weigh against forfeiture and granted the application, ordering the forfeiture of the currency to the Crown.

The appellant, Neighbour’s Drug Mart Ltd., appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of its judicial review application.

The original decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs terminated Neighbour’s Health Network System Agreement, revoked its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, and suspended its entitlement to payment due to false or unsubstantiated claims.

Neighbour’s argued the Divisional Court erred by misapprehending the record, imposing an unsupported sanction, and creating absolute liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the Divisional Court's application of the reasonableness standard or its conclusions regarding the owner's responsibility and the regulatory scheme's honour system.

The court also rejected the argument that the Executive Officer's consent to a change of control precluded subsequent termination, emphasizing the new owner's assumption of all liabilities.

This endorsement addresses a costs ruling following successful summary judgment motions.

The defendants, as moving parties for costs, sought $70,000 in partial indemnity costs in each of two proceedings.

The plaintiffs, as responding parties, argued against the award, citing lack of notice regarding certain claims and the potential impediment to their ongoing litigation against other defendants.

The court granted the defendants the full requested costs, totaling $140,000, finding that the defendants were entirely successful, their offer to settle was generous, the allegations against them were serious, and the amount sought was reasonable.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments against the costs award.

The moving parties, including the Crown and two police officers, sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' actions for negligent investigation, intentional infliction of mental harm, and civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from a police investigation into alleged sexual assaults by two minor plaintiffs, which resulted in criminal charges that were later stayed after the minors completed counselling.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in favour of the plaintiffs, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges, and there was no evidence supporting the other tort claims.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving parties were dismissed.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drugs Programs to revoke its billing privileges following an inspection that revealed over $250,000 in unsubstantiated and non-compliant claims.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable because the new owner was not responsible for the prior owner's misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Executive Officer reasonably concluded that the new owner was responsible for the pharmacy's compliance and that problematic billing practices continued under his management.