Gregory Ko

This costs endorsement follows the Law Society of Ontario’s successful motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court orders each of the moving parties severally liable for costs of $200, payable to the Law Society of Ontario, on a partial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by 13 respondents to re-open an appeal regarding the Law Society of Ontario’s decision to void their licensing exam results and registrations due to exam integrity breaches.

The court found that the moving parties had not been denied judicial review, that their complaint was about the adequacy of reasons rather than a rare circumstance justifying re-opening, and that the interests of justice did not require reconsideration.

The court held that the Law Society’s actions were consistent with its by-laws and that the moving parties’ arguments had been addressed.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed its administrative decision to void the registrations of 20 licensing candidates implicated in a cheating scandal.

The Divisional Court had found the LSO breached procedural fairness by not holding oral hearings before voiding the registrations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the Baker factors and conflated the LSO's administrative licensing functions with its disciplinary good character functions.

The Court held that the written process provided by the LSO, which included disclosure and multiple opportunities to respond, satisfied the duty of procedural fairness.

The Court also admitted new evidence and found the Divisional Court breached procedural fairness by making costs orders without allowing submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence due to his failure to comply with two prior court orders requiring him to answer undertakings and refusals, and to pay costs.

The self-represented defendant argued the ordered undertakings were overly broad and intrusive, but provided no evidence of inability to pay costs and did not indicate a willingness to comply.

The court found the defendant unwilling to comply with court orders and struck the statement of defence, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The University of Windsor brought a motion for a publication ban and sealing order in an application for judicial review of a university adjudicator's decision finding the applicant committed sexual assault.

The motion sought to protect the identity of the complainant and other individuals who made complaints.

Applying the test from Sherman Estate, the court granted the publication ban and a modified sealing order, finding that court openness posed a serious risk to the important public interest of preserving the dignity of sexual assault complainants.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university adjudicator's decision regarding her sexual assault complaint against another student.

The adjudicator had deferred the outcome of the university's disciplinary appeal to the result of the respondent's pending criminal trial.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the adjudicator unlawfully delegated his decision-making authority and improperly imported the criminal standard of proof into an administrative proceeding.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a different adjudicator.

The Plaintiff sought to amend an existing litigation timetable due to COVID-19 disruptions.

The Defendant opposed remote examinations for discovery, argued for incomplete documentary production, and sought to bring a motion for security for costs.

The court ordered the delivery of sworn affidavits of documents, mandated remote examinations for discovery and mediation if requested, and directed that any motion for security for costs be brought after discoveries.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct arising from her provision of home care to a vulnerable child.

The Member admitted to failing to document care, crossing professional boundaries by requesting additional shifts and a reference letter from the patient's father, and misappropriating the patient's communication book containing health records.

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

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondent leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of a corporation under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act.

The motion judge had granted leave on a nunc pro tunc basis.

The Divisional Court held that the motion judge erred in applying the doctrine of nunc pro tunc to cure an expired limitation period, following the Supreme Court's decision in the CIBC Trilogy.

The court varied the order to state that derivative claims arising more than two years prior to the filing of the motion for leave are statute-barred, but allowed the grant of leave to stand for continuing breaches within the limitation period.

The Union filed group grievances on behalf of Classroom Assistants working in provincially-operated special needs schools, alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by limiting their hours of work to 36.25 hours per week instead of 40.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator found that the collective agreement provisions relied upon by the Union, including the Salary Schedule and Article 32.2.1, did not create an entitlement to a minimum of 40 hours of work per week for seasonal employees.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The defendant sought costs after successfully opposing the plaintiff's motion to quash an appeal.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded because the motion raised a novel jurisdictional question and was brought in good faith.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding that the motion was not sufficiently novel to justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $8,166.51.

The plaintiff moved to quash the defendant's appeal of an order granting the plaintiff leave, nunc pro tunc, to commence a derivative action.

The plaintiff argued the order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that the motion judge's order was a final order because it disposed of the defendant's limitation period defence, thereby depriving the defendant of a substantive right that could have been determinative of the entire derivative action.

As a final order, leave to appeal was not required, and the motion to quash was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $36,733.95 plus HST and disbursements following a successful motion, relying on offers to settle.

The responding defendant argued the costs were excessive and disproportionate, suggesting $8,000.

The court agreed the motion was complex and important, but found the plaintiff's claimed hours involved extensive duplication.

Emphasizing the overriding principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $15,000 plus HST and $2,000 for disbursements.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder of a corporation, brought a motion to amend his statement of claim and for leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the corporation against a real estate brokerage for breach of a joint venture agreement.

The brokerage opposed the motion, arguing the amendments constituted a new cause of action outside the limitation period and that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements for a derivative action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the brokerage had notice of the factual matrix underlying the claims within the limitation period, and that the plaintiff satisfied all statutory requirements to bring a derivative action in good faith.

An employee appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim for unpaid bonuses following termination without cause.

The employment contract contained a limitation clause stating that bonuses did not accrue and were only earned and payable on the designated pay-out date.

The trial judge found the limitation clause unambiguous and enforceable.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the parties had clearly agreed on how and when bonuses would be declared, earned, accrued, and paid.

The court rejected arguments based on unconscionability and public policy, noting that the bonus provisions were freely negotiated.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in educational services.

The request was filed two weeks before the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that granting intervenor status at such a late stage could prejudice the parties and delay the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant regulatory body brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching a prior court order prohibiting him from representing himself as a chiropractor or performing controlled acts associated with chiropractic practice.

The respondent had previously admitted breaches of the same order in earlier contempt proceedings and agreed to comply with settlement terms requiring immediate cessation of practice and removal of promotional materials.

Evidence including patient files, appointment records, and affidavits from patients established beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent continued operating a chiropractic practice and using the title “doctor” or “D.C.” in connection with providing health services.

The court found the respondent knowingly and wilfully breached the 2006 order and continued to hold himself out as a chiropractor.

A finding of contempt was entered, with a further hearing to determine penalty and costs.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2002 but did not commence an action until 2011.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred, finding that a reasonable person would have investigated the ongoing back pain and discovered the serious and permanent nature of the injury well before 2009.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion on discoverability and noting the appellant adduced no evidence of individual characteristics that would have prevented her from discovering the claim earlier.