Lara Kinkartz

Following an appeal that was allowed in part, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The appellant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $59,600, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $40,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 66-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a 66-storey tower with a seven-storey podium, retail uses, and a public park dedication.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and City Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle and withholding its final order pending satisfaction of conditions.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that the member committed repeated boundary violations and sexual misconduct against three vulnerable clients, including prolonged unwanted touching, sexualized comments, coercive conduct, and in one instance forced sexual contact.

The panel also found that the member failed to maintain proper clinical and financial records and issued false invoices in a child’s name to obtain insurance reimbursement for services actually provided to adult clients.

Relying in part on expert evidence on social work ethics, boundaries, documentation, and trauma-informed practice, the panel held that the conduct breached multiple provisions of the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the Standards of Practice Handbook.

All allegations in both Notices of Hearing were proven on a balance of probabilities.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Halton Hills' failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and appeals against the adopted Official Plan Amendment 32.

The Tribunal received a status update on mediation efforts concerning natural heritage issues.

The Tribunal directed revisions to the Issues List proposed by a party, finding some issues were not relevant planning matters.

The Tribunal approved the revised Issues List and issued the Procedural Order to govern the upcoming three-phase merit hearing.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's decision finding he breached the municipal Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential and solicitor-client privileged information to external legal counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Integrity Commissioner's decision was reasonable because the applicant lacked authority to waive the municipality's privilege or disclose confidential procurement documents.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness during the investigation.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted allegations arising from prolonged misuse of the titles "Doctor", "Dr.", "psychotherapist", and "registered psychotherapist" while providing or advertising healthcare services.

The Panel found professional misconduct proved on a balance of probabilities under the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, including misrepresentation of qualifications, misleading advertising, improper record-keeping, contraventions of title restrictions, and unprofessional conduct.

The Panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, emphasizing public protection, general and specific deterrence, and remediation.

The resulting order imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, remedial ethics and reflective conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

The Appellant brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed its appeal of the City of St. Catharines' Official Plan Amendment No. 26 in full, and sought a stay of the OPA.

The Appellant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, violated rules of natural justice, and made errors of law by dismissing the appeal in full when the responding parties had only sought partial dismissal.

The Tribunal found the Appellant failed to establish a convincing and compelling case under Rule 25.7 that the Tribunal made any of the enumerated errors.

The motion for review and request for a stay were dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Northampton Inns (Whitby) Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 54-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to three neighbouring property owners.

A nine-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on October 17, 2023, and the parties were directed to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by breaching a condition prohibiting him from dispensing to or interacting with minors unsupervised.

The Divisional Court found the Committee interpreted the condition over-broadly and made palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding three of the four alleged breaches.

The appeal was allowed in part, three findings of misconduct were set aside, and the penalty and costs orders were remitted to the Committee for redetermination.

The College's cross-appeal seeking revocation of the appellant's certificate was dismissed.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) on informed consent.

The order arose from a patient complaint regarding the administration of conscious sedation during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's concerns about the lack of one-on-one communication and the applicant's reliance on staff for informed consent were supported by the record, making the HPARB's confirmation of the decision reasonable.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the member admitted allegations arising from inaccurate, conflicting, and falsified client records created while providing social work services to motor vehicle accident claimants.

The Panel found professional misconduct established on the agreed facts, including failures to maintain systematic and accurate records, creation of false or misleading documents, and conduct reasonably regarded as dishonourable and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint penalty submissions, the Panel accepted a revised joint submission providing for a reprimand, a three-month suspension with a partially remittable component, supervision, an ethics course, publication, and costs.

The Panel treated the member’s prior caution for similar record-keeping concerns as an aggravating factor and her admissions and cooperation as mitigating.

The applicant, Chair of the City of Hamilton's LGBTQ Advisory Committee, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report finding he breached the code of conduct by disclosing confidential information, and the City Council's subsequent decision to reprimand him.

The applicant argued the Integrity Commissioner lacked jurisdiction because the advisory committee was not a 'local board' under the Municipal Act, 2001, and that the process was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable to interpret 'local board' as including the advisory committee, and that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness throughout the investigation and council proceedings.

The Medical Officer of Health for Haldimand-Norfolk appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that struck down a requirement limiting the number of migrant farm workers to three per bunkhouse during their mandatory 14-day COVID-19 self-isolation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the HSARB erred in law by applying too high a standard of proof, failing to consider that the directive was a class order, and incorrectly concluding that the three-person limit was arbitrary.

The court restored the original order, emphasizing the precautionary principle and the vulnerability of migrant farm workers.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from counselling a client with an acquired brain injury while lacking relevant competence, using abusive and demeaning communications, breaching confidentiality, and engaging in boundary violations and conflicts of interest through overlapping family representation and personal self-disclosure.

The Panel found the admitted facts established multiple breaches of the governing regulation, the Code of Ethics, and the Standards of Practice Handbook, and further found the conduct disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the Panel accepted the jointly proposed order.

The member was reprimanded, suspended for four months with one month remittable on compliance, made subject to remedial terms and education requirements, and ordered to pay $5,000 in costs.

Professional discipline decision concerning a social worker who admitted professional misconduct arising from couples counselling in which she failed to adequately screen for, recognize, and respond to signs of intimate partner abuse.

The panel found that the member failed to make necessary inquiries, assess power dynamics, use appropriate screening tools, ensure a safety plan, and remain current in practice standards and supervision obligations.

The panel also found the conduct dishonourable and unprofessional, particularly given a prior caution on similar issues.

A joint penalty submission was accepted imposing a reprimand, a one-month suspension suspended for two years subject to compliance, remedial education and supervision terms, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

Three groups brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal from a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The underlying appeal concerned a medical officer of health's order limiting migrant farm workers to a maximum of three persons per bunkhouse to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The court granted leave to intervene to the human rights organization and a coalition of legal clinics, finding they would make useful and distinct contributions regarding international human rights and the specific vulnerabilities of migrant workers.

The court dismissed the motion by the religious organization, finding it had not demonstrated a unique legal perspective or expertise.

In a professional discipline hearing, the tribunal found the member guilty of professional misconduct for repeatedly accessing sealed adoption records without authorization, copying or noting their contents, and disclosing the information to an adoptee with whom she was in a personal relationship.

The tribunal held that pre-registration conduct could ground discipline where it bore on current suitability to practise and found the member's confidentiality breach, dishonesty during the employer investigation, and resulting harm to affected persons demonstrated disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty despite expressing concern that revocation might otherwise have been warranted.

It imposed an oral reprimand, a 16-month suspension with partial remission conditional on compliance, remediation terms, publication, and $13,000 in costs.

The appellant, a small distillery, challenged the LCBO's 139.7% mark-up on spirits sold at its on-site retail store, arguing it was an unconstitutional tax under sections 53 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application judge dismissed the challenge, finding the mark-up was a proprietary charge and not a tax, and that the appellant had voluntarily agreed to it by contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the LCBO, as the owner of the spirits under the contract, was exercising its private law rights to determine prices in a commercial context.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists brought an ex parte motion for an interim injunction and compliance order against a former pharmacist and her pharmacy corporation.

The respondent had previously undertaken to resign her registration and close or sell the pharmacy, but evidence showed she continued to operate the pharmacy and dispense narcotics.

The court granted the interim injunction, suspending the pharmacy's accreditation and authorizing the College to seize drugs and records, finding that irreparable harm is presumed when an unlicensed individual provides public health care services.