Douglas P. O’Toole

The appellant chiropractor appealed the liability, penalty, and costs decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario.

The appellant had been found guilty of professional misconduct for sending threatening emails to a colleague who had previously complained about him, and for failing to cooperate with the College's investigation.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct regarding the inappropriate communications and the initial failure to cooperate, but set aside the finding that the appellant failed to cooperate after an investigator was appointed.

The court upheld the penalty, which included a 12-month suspension and a $10,000 fine.

A majority of the court also upheld the costs award of $166,194.50 against the appellant, finding it reasonable given the circumstances of the hearing.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action arising from catastrophic injuries suffered when the plaintiff fell from a ladder while removing a sign from a commercial building.

The defendant argued it was not an “occupier” of the premises under the Nova Scotia Occupiers' Liability Act and therefore owed no duty of care, or alternatively that the plaintiff willingly assumed the risk.

The court held that the evidentiary record permitted a finding that the defendant exercised sufficient control over the premises and the activity to qualify as an occupier, and that the plaintiff’s presence on the municipal sidewalk was incidental to work being performed on the building.

The court further held that issues concerning the occupier’s duty in relation to the conduct of third parties and the alleged assumption of risk required a full trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

The applicant, the Mayor of Cambridge, brought an application for a declaration that his deemed pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was so remote or insignificant that he was exempt from the duty to refrain from participating in council matters.

The interest arose because his son co-owned a condominium near a proposed rapid transit station, which a report suggested might experience a 'land value uplift'.

The Crown, named as respondent, argued it was improperly named, but the court held it was properly joined to represent the public interest.

The court granted the declaration, finding that a reasonable elector would not regard the uncertain and indirect potential increase in the son's property value as likely to influence the applicant's decisions on the mass transit project.

The applicant, a municipal mayor, brought an application for a declaration that his deemed pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was so remote or insignificant that he was exempt from the duty to refrain from participating in council matters regarding a mass transit project.

The deemed interest arose from his son's ownership of a condominium near a proposed transit station.

The court first held that the Crown was properly named as a respondent to represent the general public interest.

The court then granted the declaration, finding that a reasonable elector would not regard the potential, uncertain 'land value uplift' to the son's property as likely to influence the applicant's actions or decisions.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from injuries sustained when a sign fell and knocked the plaintiff from a ladder while he was assisting in removing it from a building.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached its duty under the Nova Scotia Occupiers Liability Act to ensure that he was reasonably safe while on the premises.

The court held that the evidentiary record was incomplete and that the motion was premature, emphasizing the need for production and discovery to permit a full appreciation of the issues.

Applying the principles from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court declined to determine the claim summarily.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to being renewed after discovery.

The applicant moved to exclude expert reports obtained by the insurer from Brigham & Associates Inc. via a 'paper review' of his medical records, arguing the insurer breached his privacy rights and the PIPED Act by disclosing his records without consent.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer did not breach the Schedule or the applicant's reasonable expectation of privacy, as the records were disclosed to the insurer's agent for the purpose of responding to the application.

The Arbitrator also found no breach of the PIPED Act, applying the personal purposes exemption, and held that the reports were admissible.

The insurer was not required to fund rebuttal reports.