6 total
Costs award reduced to $25,000 due to lawyer's cooperative conduct in professional misconduct proceedings.
Following a finding of professional misconduct regarding syndicated mortgage transactions, the Law Society Tribunal considered the issue of costs.
The Law Society sought $60,000 in costs, while the respondent lawyer argued for $25,000.
The Tribunal reviewed the principles of costs awards in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that while the profession should not bear all costs, reductions are appropriate to recognize cooperative conduct that shortens proceedings.
Given the lawyer's extensive cooperation, including agreeing to a comprehensive agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal reduced the costs award to $25,000.
Particulars refused where disclosure already gave accused sufficient notice of the case.
The accused brought a pre‑trial motion seeking particulars requiring the Crown to specify the alleged misrepresentations, fraudulent conduct, and false accounting entries underlying charges relating to financial reporting of a public corporation.
The motion relied on s. 587 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the indictment lacked sufficient detail for the preparation of a defence.
The court reviewed the extensive investigations, disclosure, and related regulatory proceedings already known to the accused and concluded that they were aware of the case they had to meet.
The court held that the areas of dispute were sufficiently delineated and that further particulars were unnecessary for trial fairness or evidentiary rulings.
The application for particulars was dismissed.
Leave to appeal denied; Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction to hear physicians' Charter challenges.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motions to strike out applications brought by four physicians.
The physicians had applied to the Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.
The College argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matters should be heard by the administrative tribunal.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for striking pleadings and properly concluded it was not plain and obvious the applications would fail, as the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction over Charter challenges.
Denial of OHIP reimbursement for out-of-country liver transplant upheld; no section 7 Charter violation found.
The appellant, suffering from liver cancer, was deemed ineligible for a liver transplant in Ontario.
He obtained a life-saving living-related liver transplant in England at a cost of $450,000 and sought reimbursement from OHIP.
The Health Services Appeal and Review Board denied the claim, finding the treatment was not an 'insured service' under s. 28.4(2) of Regulation 552 because it was not generally accepted in Ontario as appropriate for a person in his medical circumstances.
The Divisional Court upheld the decision.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that the regulation did not violate section 7 of the Charter, as it did not deprive the appellant of life or security of the person but merely limited a financial benefit.
Tribunal proceedings stayed due to 10-year delay that compromised hearing fairness and constituted abuse of process.
The applicant physician sought judicial review to prohibit the respondent tribunal from proceeding with a patient's claim of sexual assault filed 10 years prior.
The applicant had been exonerated by both the police and his professional college shortly after the allegations were made.
The tribunal had closed its file for over four years before reopening it, and the applicant presented evidence that key witnesses' memories had faded.
The Divisional Court granted the application and stayed the proceedings, finding that the extraordinary delay compromised the fairness of the hearing and amounted to a gross abuse of process.
Convictions set aside and new trial ordered due to trial judge's error on reasonable doubt standard.
The appellant appealed his convictions for drug and firearms offences, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the reasonable doubt standard to circumstantial evidence.
The trial judge had rejected the appellant's competing inference on the basis that it was not 'equally plausible'.
The Court of Appeal held this was a clear legal error, as reasonable possibilities in favour of an accused may give rise to a reasonable doubt.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.