Carol Street

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee dismissing allegations of patient abuse against a registered nurse.

The allegations involved the nurse allegedly slapping a psychiatric patient across the face.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the allegations after finding the evidence of the two complaining nurses to be inconsistent and not credible, while finding the respondent nurse's denials to be plausible.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's decision, finding that the credibility assessments and factual findings were defensible and supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim ruling by the Discipline Committee of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, which had deferred a decision on a motion to dismiss charges until the end of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court emphasized its reluctance to fragment administrative proceedings and noted that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to control its own process and defer its decision until a full evidentiary record was available.

The Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that allowed the respondent's appeal from a decision of the Association's Council.

The Council had upheld a Registration Committee decision deferring the respondent's membership application until she completed four additional university courses, despite her holding a four-year Bachelor of Science degree.

The Divisional Court found the Association had no statutory authority to impose these additional requirements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Divisional Court applied the appropriate standard of review (reasonableness) and made no error in its analysis or conclusion.

The defendant was charged with selling a new home not previously occupied without being registered as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The defendant purchased an incomplete home by power of sale in October 2009 and re-listed it for sale in February 2010 without ever occupying it.

The home was sold to the purchaser in April 2010 prior to obtaining an occupancy permit.

The court found that the defendant was a vendor within the meaning of the Act and should have been registered with Tarion.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the home was exempt from the Act because the original builder had declared it exempt on the building permit application.

The court applied a contextual and purposive interpretation of the Act, emphasizing that the defendant never occupied the home and re-sold it prior to completion and obtaining an occupancy permit.

An appeal from convictions under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant was convicted of three offences: constructing a new home without being registered as a builder, commencing construction without notifying Tarion and paying the prescribed fee, and knowingly furnishing false information in an enrolment application.

The appeal court found that the trial court erred in admitting documentary evidence without compliance with the best evidence rule and without proper authentication.

The court also found that hearsay evidence was improperly admitted.

As a result, there was insufficient admissible evidence to support the convictions, and the appeal was allowed with acquittals substituted.

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision refusing to renew its registration as a home builder under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred by relying on its past history of non-compliance, asserting that the respondent was estopped from doing so because it had previously renewed the registration annually.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the respondent was not precluded from putting the appellant's entire record before the Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought to introduce fresh evidence of events that occurred after the tribunal's decision on an appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the appeal must be based on the record before the tribunal and that post-hearing conduct is a matter for the tribunal.

The court found this was not a rare case where post-hearing evidence must be admitted to prevent an obvious and substantial injustice.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal to strike additional grounds and particulars from a Supplemental Notice of Proposal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, emphasizing the strong presumption that administrative tribunal procedures should be completed before seeking judicial review, absent exceptional circumstances.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant's undertakings would not be carried out in accordance with law or with integrity, and that there were problems with technical competence based on past chargeable conciliations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that the Tribunal's findings of fact were reasonable and supported by ample evidence.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on consent without costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which found they were not entitled to compensation for a delayed closing under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants had signed an amendment to their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, substituting a new lot and setting a new closing date, which the builder met.

The Divisional Court found no error of fact or law in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding $1,000 in costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The Court noted that the appellants offered no explanation for their lengthy delay in moving to set aside the default judgment, which alone was sufficient to dispose of the appeal.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's finding that he was not constructively dismissed.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's interpretation of the employment contract, which entitled the employer to reduce the appellant's salary and commissions on proper notice.

The changes did not constitute a termination and did not trigger the Employment Standards Act.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant, a land surveyor, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing his application for judicial review.

The issue was whether a member of the Discipline Committee whose term of office expired could continue to participate in a disciplinary hearing that had only heard preliminary motions.

The Court of Appeal held that the hearing had 'commenced' and evidence had been 'heard' through the filing of exhibits, satisfying section 26(11) of the Surveyors Act.

Furthermore, the member had 'participated in a hearing' under section 4.3 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the member to continue on the panel.