Douglas Montgomery

Following a judgment allowing the plaintiffs' action, the parties made written submissions on costs and prejudgment interest.

The parties settled the issue of costs for $6,680,632.45.

On the issue of prejudgment interest, the court determined the start dates for the calculation of interest for each plaintiff.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to average the interest rate or to award compound interest, finding no unusual or special circumstances to justify departing from the presumptive statutory scheme.

The court also declined to reduce the period for calculating interest based on the plaintiffs' conduct.

Following a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff $2.54 million in damages for wrongful dismissal, the court determined costs and pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on pre-trial offers to settle and an elevated pre-judgment interest rate.

The court found the plaintiff did not beat his initial offer due to a pre-trial payment by the defendant, and his amended offer was made too late to trigger Rule 49.10.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to award elevated costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendant.

The court also declined to depart from the prescribed pre-judgment interest rate of 2.0%, finding no unusual circumstances to justify a higher rate.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $798,453.91.

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old Managing Director in investment banking with 18 years of service, was terminated without cause.

The court determined the reasonable notice period to be 21 months, considering his age, length of service, and specialized role.

The court used a comparator approach to calculate the plaintiff's lost bonuses during the notice period, rejecting the employer's averaging approach due to the highly cyclical nature of the mining market and the employer's record profits during the notice period.

After deducting mitigation earnings and severance already paid, the court awarded the plaintiff $2,540,073.95 in damages.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to participate in the College's Quality Assurance Program.

Despite multiple notices and extensions, the Member did not complete the required assessments.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and remedial conditions including meetings with a Regulatory Expert.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, filed almost two years after the deadline.

The ICRC had required the moving party to complete a remediation program and attend for a caution regarding medication errors and inappropriate access to patient charts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed application lacked apparent grounds for relief given the reasonableness standard of review, and that the moving party failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the lengthy delay.

The plaintiffs, shareholders and creditors in Mobilicity, a wireless telecommunications company, sued the federal government for negligence and negligent misrepresentation arising from the 2008 AWS spectrum auction.

The plaintiffs alleged that Industry Canada represented that spectrum licences acquired at auction would be transferable to incumbent carriers after a five-year moratorium, and that they relied on this representation to invest approximately $250 million in equity and $95 million in debt to capitalize Mobilicity and bid for spectrum licences.

The plaintiffs further alleged that in 2013, the government unilaterally changed the transfer framework to prohibit transfers to incumbents, and in 2014-2015 interfered with Mobilicity's sales process through threats, media manipulation, and regulatory delay.

The court found the government liable for negligence and negligent misrepresentation, holding that it owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs based on specific representations made to induce investment, and that it breached that duty through the implementation of the 2013 Transfer Framework and subsequent interference in the sales process.

The court awarded damages based on a "but for" analysis, calculating what the plaintiffs would have earned in alternative investments had they not relied on the government's representations.

The College of Nurses of Ontario requested the dismissal of the applicant's motion to set aside a previous order under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The previous order had dismissed the applicant's motion to extend the time to bring an application for judicial review of a disciplinary caution.

The court found that the applicant's motion to set aside was brought out of time, failed to address the substantive issues of delay, and made baseless allegations of bias and misconduct against the motion judge and opposing counsel.

Concluding that the motion was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, the court dismissed the proceeding.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent nurse for failing to participate in a mandatory Quality Assurance Assessment.

The respondent admitted to the allegations and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee found that the respondent committed professional misconduct and accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and the imposition of terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The appellant, a Registered Practical Nurse, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding she committed professional misconduct by submitting false insurance claims to her employer's benefits plan.

The Committee had ordered a six-month suspension and other penalties.

On appeal, the appellant brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court dismissed as the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing and constituted a collateral attack.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual and credibility findings, and held the penalty was not clearly unfit.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to participate in the College's Quality Assurance assessment despite multiple notifications and opportunities to comply.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee imposed a penalty including an oral reprimand, a two-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and terms requiring meetings with a Regulatory Expert and completion of the Quality Assurance Program.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to inadequate patient care, failure to document vital signs, improper medication administration, pre-pouring medications, and leaving narcotics unattended.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and various remedial conditions including meetings with a regulatory expert and completion of a patient safety course.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to participate in the College's Quality Assurance Program despite multiple notifications and extensions.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, characterizing the conduct as dishonourable and unprofessional.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee imposed a penalty including an oral reprimand, a two-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and terms requiring meetings with a Regulatory Expert and completion of the Quality Assurance Program.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct by making false benefits claims, misappropriating funds, and falsifying records.

At the penalty hearing, the Discipline Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a six-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and an 18-month employer notification period.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $2,880.00 in costs due to pre-hearing delays caused by the Member.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for stealing a deceased patient's cell phone, glasses, health card, and bag.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found that the Member's actions contravened the standards of practice, constituted misappropriation of property, and were disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Applying the Anthony-Cook test, the Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a 4-month suspension, and conditions including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The appellants, representing a class of Ontario Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees, appealed a summary judgment decision regarding their entitlement to Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that Shoppers breached the 2002 franchise agreement by retaining the allowances, which constituted 'revenue', but did not breach the 2010 agreement, which explicitly allowed Shoppers to retain such concessions.

The Court also upheld the application of a rolling limitation period and the refusal to award aggregate damages due to the idiosyncratic nature of the profit-sharing model.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the quantification of damages, finding that Shoppers breached its duty of good faith by arbitrarily allocating $129 million as out-of-province rebates to avoid sharing the funds with Ontario franchisees, bringing the total Professional Allowances received to $1.084 billion.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, was randomly selected to participate in the College's Quality Assurance Assessment but failed to complete any components despite multiple notifications and extensions.

The Member did not attend the discipline hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee and by engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered a four-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and terms and conditions including meetings with a Regulatory Expert.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by accessing the electronic health records of 43 patients without consent, authorization, or any professional purpose.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found that the Member's conduct contravened the standards of practice and was dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing an oral reprimand, a 3-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and terms, conditions, and limitations including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification with spot audits.

The Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario sought penalties against Latif Alsoma for civil contempt, stemming from his breach of a 2018 consent order prohibiting him from practicing dentistry without a license and holding himself out as a dentist.

The court found Alsoma in contempt due to his deliberate and unremorseful actions, including performing controlled dental acts on a patient over an extended period and maintaining a dental clinic without registered dentists.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 45 days house arrest, 100 hours of community service, and a $10,000 fine payable to the Provincial Treasurer.

A permanent injunction mirroring the consent order was also granted, along with substantial indemnity costs to the College, but investigatory costs were denied.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which required her to complete a remediation program and receive a caution for working for two public health employers concurrently during the same shifts.

The applicant argued she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no factual basis for the ineffective assistance claim and concluding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable and justified based on the record.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the Member for submitting false claims to her employer's group benefit plan.

The Member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging she submitted claims for products and services she did not receive, totaling $7,170.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct by contravening standards of practice, misappropriating property, and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a 4-month suspension, and conditions on her certificate of registration.