Calina Ritchie

The appellant, an inmate, appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his action against the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The original action alleged deliberate power cuts to his cell and sought damages and an order for an extension cord.

The Superior Court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting jurisdictional issues and a lack of cause of action, and ruled against the admissibility of the appellant's affidavit evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no clear error or misdirection by the motion judge, and affirmed that Rule 2.1.01 is intended for summary dismissal of such claims, precluding the need for affidavit evidence.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation claims, the successful defendants (the Attorney General of Canada and an individual) sought partial indemnity costs of $16,084.

The plaintiff objected to the hourly rates proposed for Crown counsel, arguing they exceeded internal department rates and violated the indemnity principle.

The court rejected this argument, applying the principle that costs for salaried government lawyers should be fixed as though they were independent outside counsel.

The court found the proposed rates reasonable and awarded the requested costs.

The self-represented plaintiff, a prisoner in Quebec, commenced an action in Ontario against the Commissioner of Correctional Services Canada, alleging malicious power interruptions to his cell.

The court reviewed the statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the claim asserted no recognized cause of action and lacked any real connection to Ontario, the court concluded the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process designed to circumvent vexatious litigant declarations in other jurisdictions.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The applicant brought an application against his sister regarding the management of their incapable mother's finances under a continuing power of attorney.

The respondent had sold the mother's house and placed the proceeds in a trust account, refusing the applicant access due to allegations of prior financial mismanagement.

The court directed that the siblings must act jointly as attorneys pursuant to the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court ordered the parties to pass their accounts, open a joint investment account for the sale proceeds, maintain a joint chequing account for the mother's immediate needs, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for the mother.

Both parties were awarded partial costs payable from the sale proceeds.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by physically and verbally abusing students in her Grade 7/8 class.

The allegations included hitting a student with test papers, throwing a sandwich at a student, and making inappropriate comments.

After hearing testimony from students, the vice-principal, and the Member, the Discipline Committee found the evidence insufficient to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee noted inconsistencies in the students' testimony and concluded that any physical contact was likely accidental rather than intentional abuse.

The allegations were dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving an inappropriate relationship with a student.

The member entered a plea of no contest, admitting to exchanging inappropriate personal emails, conducting sexual conversations, and engaging in inappropriate sexual actions with the student.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, revoking the member's teaching certificate, directing that he not apply for reinstatement for at least five years, and ordering the publication of his name and a summary of the findings.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the member.

The allegations were based on three unsatisfactory Teacher Performance Appraisals.

Since the filing of the allegations, the member completed a course and received a satisfactory appraisal.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion on consent, finding the withdrawal reasonable and in the public interest.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct after failing to prevent a classroom door from closing on a student's fingers and inappropriately taking another student by the hand.

The Member entered a plea of no contest and admitted to failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a verbal reprimand, the completion of an Additional Basic Qualification Course in Special Education, and publication of the decision without the Member's name.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing after finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct for physically, verbally, psychologically, or emotionally abusing four students.

The College sought a six-month suspension, reprimand, psychiatric report, publication, and travel costs.

The Member argued for a lesser penalty, citing a psychiatric report indicating minimal risk of re-offending.

The Committee ordered a six-month suspension, a reprimand, ethics training, and publication of the Member's name with a summary of the decision.

The Committee declined to order the Member to pay travel costs or submit a further psychiatric report.

The College brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the member.

The allegations were based on two unsatisfactory performance appraisals conducted by the same person within a short period, which were vague and subjective.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion on consent, finding that it would be difficult to prove incompetence on this basis and that withdrawal served the public interest.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for fastening a student to a chair with masking tape as a joke and calling him 'pig-headed'.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea, finding that her actions failed to maintain the standards of the profession and were disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

The Committee ordered the member to appear in person for a verbal reprimand, complete a specified course on respecting boundaries, and directed that a summary of the decision be published without identifying the member.

Rideau Carleton Raceway appealed a $5,000 fine imposed by the Judges for failing to have the racing strip suitably prepared for racing, which caused the cancellation of races due to unsafe, dusty conditions.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal, finding clear evidence that the track was not race-ready and that the track superintendent failed to comply with an order to provide weekly reports.

The panel upheld the fine and ordered the track's surface committee to meet weekly with mandatory reporting.