James Cameron

The applicant, a medical resident diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, sought judicial review of a university committee's decision dismissing him from a pediatric neurology program for professionalism breaches.

He argued the committee failed to properly consider the duty to accommodate his disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee reasonably concluded that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship, as it would require constant one-on-one supervision to mitigate the risk to vulnerable patients.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions where the defendants successfully dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend their statement of claim and granted the defendants' motion to strike numerous paragraphs from the statement of claim and reply.

The defendants sought $16,641.06 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was unreasonable and disproportionate, proposing $5,000.00.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher, found the defendants' claimed time excessive due to inferred overlap between counsel.

The court fixed costs at $12,000.00, inclusive of tax and disbursements, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim following a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that largely barred their claims against the defendants under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike out paragraphs of the original statement of claim and reply that were inconsistent with the WSIAT decision, as well as allegations related to surveillance and Human Rights Code breaches.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding the proposed amendments were statute-barred or otherwise untenable.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike, ruling that the WSIAT decision was final and binding, that the intentional infliction of mental suffering claim related to surveillance was inadequately pleaded, and that the Human Rights Code claims were either barred by WSIAT or could not stand alone.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for accessing the personal health information of two individuals (one a deceased patient, the other a family member) without consent or authorization.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration, including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification for 18 months.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by the College of Early Childhood Educators in prior professional misconduct complaints.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that section 51(6) of the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007 creates an absolute statutory privilege that renders the College's decisions inadmissible in civil proceedings, including Tribunal applications.

Consequently, there was no admissible evidence upon which the respondent could rely to support its section 45.1 request.

The member, a vice-principal, was recorded on video surveillance removing money from an envelope in a room containing a safe.

She admitted to theft and resigned from her employment.

At the discipline hearing, she pleaded guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and the completion of an ethics course.

The Committee also ordered that the decision be published with the member's name, finding that publication serves as a specific and general deterrent and reinforces the College's mandate to protect the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who misused a school board's procurement credit card for personal gas purchases on seven occasions.

The member admitted to the misconduct, resigned from his employment, and reimbursed the board.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on resolution, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered an oral reprimand, required the member to complete a course on ethical behaviour, and prohibited him from assuming financial responsibilities in any employment requiring a teaching certificate for two years following the course.

This appeal considered whether actuarial surpluses recorded in federal public-sector superannuation accounts were assets in which plan members held legal or equitable interests.

The Court held the accounts were statutory accounting records tracking Consolidated Revenue Fund transactions, not segregated asset pools.

It rejected claims based on proprietary entitlement, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and alleged expropriation.

The Court further held the statutory amendments authorized debiting surplus amounts and did not require compensation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Member, a vice-principal, rented an apartment to a colleague.

After she moved out, he sent letters to her, the police, the small claims court, and her new employer falsely accusing her of stealing items from the apartment.

He later retracted the allegations and apologized.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a written admonishment and publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The Board had dismissed the complaint on a prima facie basis without a hearing.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, as the union had conducted a reasonable investigation into the grievances.

The Court also dismissed the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness, bias, and language rights, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard appeals regarding a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal finding of pay inequity between a largely female group of employees and a largely male comparator group.

The Federal Court of Appeal had previously overturned the Tribunal's finding.

In an oral judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals on the merits, finding no reviewable error by the Tribunal, and dismissed the appeal regarding the reduction of damages, adopting the dissenting reasons of Evans J.A. from the court below.

The parties consented to an order fixing the costs of the appeal at $100,000, all inclusive, payable to the respondent Crown.

The appellants, representing federal public servants, RCMP, and Canadian Forces personnel, appealed the dismissal of their actions seeking the return of over $28 billion to their pension plans.

The Government had amortized and later withdrawn actuarial surpluses from the Superannuation Accounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Superannuation Accounts were merely legislated ledgers containing no actual assets, as employee contributions were deposited into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Court held that the Government did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plan members regarding the surplus, nor was it unjustly enriched.

Furthermore, the 2000 amendments to the governing statutes clearly authorized the Government to withdraw the actuarial surplus.

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

With the consent of the parties, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing without a hearing, pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay termination and severance pay to a former employee, a certified technician.

The employer argued it was exempt from paying under the Employment Standards Act because the employee was guilty of wilful misconduct, citing several incidents of poor and unsafe work.

The Board found that while the employee's performance was unsatisfactory and justified termination, his mistakes were not intentional or deliberate.

Therefore, the conduct did not amount to wilful misconduct, and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicant union sought to set aside a representation vote held following the restructuring of the school board, alleging irregularities including inadequate posting of the notice of vote and locked doors at polling stations.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the allegations under section 23(19) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board found that even if the allegations were true, the number of affected voters was too small to alter the outcome of the vote, and the results reflected the true wishes of the majority of the employees in the bargaining units.

In the context of a school board amalgamation, the applicant union applied for a single 'all employee' non-teaching bargaining unit.

The responding employer and two other unions proposed two bargaining units: one for maintenance/service and one for office/clerical/teaching assistants.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that two bargaining units were appropriate, noting the history of a successful two-unit structure at one of the predecessor boards and the substantial size of each proposed unit.