Marie Henein

The registrant was previously found to have committed professional misconduct by failing to obtain informed consent and conducting inappropriate physical examinations of two patients.

At the penalty hearing, the Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The registrant was ordered to be reprimanded, suspended for five months, complete an ethics and boundaries course, and pay $30,000 in costs.

The Tribunal found the penalty met the goals of public protection, deterrence, and remediation, noting the registrant's lack of prior discipline and proactive remedial efforts.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for abuse of process, arguing that the prior decision in Leavens v. Schwartz (the "Shotgun Decision") had finally disposed of the matter.

The plaintiff sought to challenge a buy/sell transaction that had been enforced by the court, alleging that the defendants had engaged in a secret investment arrangement with third-party financiers without disclosure.

The court found that the claim constituted an abuse of process because the underlying subject matter was identical to the prior proceeding, the issues could have been raised before the prior judge, and the plaintiff was essentially seeking to undo a final court decision with which he was dissatisfied.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend.

The court addressed two pretrial motions: one seeking to stay a counterclaim based on abuse of process due to delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement, and another seeking leave for third-party discovery.

The motion to stay was dismissed, as the immediate disclosure rule for settlement agreements was found not to apply to agreements with non-parties.

The motion for third-party discovery was granted, with the court finding the non-party's evidence critical and that the cooperation agreement constituted a constructive refusal to provide information, making a pretrial examination necessary for trial fairness.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce an "Outline of Terms of Settlement" reached during mediation, arguing it constituted a binding agreement.

The defendants contended that the Outline was not intended to be enforceable and lacked essential terms.

The court found that the Outline did not objectively reflect a mutual intention to create a binding agreement and that numerous material issues, including debt reallocation, minority shareholder rights, and tax implications of asset transfers, remained unresolved.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that it cannot create a contract for parties where essential terms are missing.

Nadeem Ahmed appealed his conviction for fraud and knowingly using a forged document, arguing his police statement was involuntary due to misleading advice regarding potential immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that the statement was voluntary.

The court held that police are not required to explain every possible consequence of the criminal justice process, including immigration, and that the officer's statements were not misleading.

The decision emphasized the deference owed to a trial judge's voluntariness ruling unless a palpable and overriding error is demonstrated.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Tribunal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, resulting in the revocation of his licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its credibility assessments, misapplied the concept of incremental disclosure, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's detailed and nuanced credibility findings, which preferred the patient's evidence over the appellant's.

The applicant, a milk processor, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal upholding the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's (DFO) order requiring the applicant to pay approximately $7 million for milk pricing adjustments.

The DFO had charged the applicant the highest price for milk after audits revealed the applicant's Milk Utilization Verification (MUV) declarations could not be verified due to inadequate record-keeping.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the regulatory scheme—that MUV declarations must be verifiable—was reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's findings that the higher price was a surcharge, not a penalty, and that the interlocutory order requiring a $3.3 million letter of credit was reasonable.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace on long-term disability, sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council recommending her removal from office.

The Council found she committed judicial misconduct by practicing law without a license or insurance on three occasions.

The applicant argued the hearing panel breached procedural fairness by not granting a further adjournment and that the penalty was unreasonable due to her cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing was procedurally fair and the recommendation for removal was reasonable given the lack of reliable medical evidence supporting a cognitive deficit and the severity of the misconduct.

The appellant physician was found to have committed professional misconduct involving sexual abuse of a patient, resulting in the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

He brought a motion for a stay of the penalty pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience, given the public interest in a zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct by health professionals, weighed heavily against granting a stay.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke T-Dot's Cannabis Retail Operator licence and refuse a Cannabis Retail Manager licence to Manoharan.

The Registrar alleged that Manoharan's spouse was an "interested person" in the business and that his past conduct, along with Manoharan's alleged misrepresentations and financial history, provided reasonable grounds to believe they would not carry on business with integrity, honesty, or financial responsibility.

The Tribunal found that the spouse was not an interested person under the Cannabis Licence Act, 2018, as he had no beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the business.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of misrepresentations or financial irresponsibility.

The Tribunal set aside the Notice of Proposal and directed the Registrar to issue the manager licence without conditions and maintain the operator licence subject to a condition requiring annual review engagements.

The appellant, a mid-sized dairy processor, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to invoice it retroactively at the highest class price for milk deliveries after multiple audits found its production records unreliable and unverifiable.

The appellant argued that the retroactive invoice constituted an unauthorized penalty under the Milk Act and that DFO lacked authority to impose it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 24 of DFO General Regulation 10/17 authorizes DFO to charge the highest class price when a processor fails to provide verifiable milk utilization declarations.

The Tribunal also held that the surcharge was not a penalty but a mechanism to ensure fair compensation to dairy farmers.

Finally, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a prior settlement agreement between the parties.

The defendants in two related actions sought orders to compel the plaintiffs, Andrew Stronach and Selena Stronach, to undergo medical examinations to assess their mental capacities for the purpose of determining if litigation guardians were required.

The court dismissed the motion against Selena Stronach, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

The motion against Andrew Stronach was dismissed without prejudice, as the court found it premature and suggested other discovery avenues should be pursued first.

The court also declined to order production of video recordings of Andrew's examination for discovery.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking out portions of their statements of defence.

The impugned pleadings referred to documents and communications from a judicial mediation, which the motion judge found were prima facie protected by settlement privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court affirmed that the respondents had not waived settlement privilege and that the justice of the case did not require an exception to allow the appellants to plead the privileged information to defend against breach of fiduciary duty claims.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from the decision of Cavanagh J. dated August 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs in the agreed amount of $20,000 payable by the responding parties.

A case management teleconference was scheduled to settle a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and to schedule an expedited appeal date.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, brought motions to strike out portions of the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statements of Defence under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs argued that the impugned pleadings improperly referenced documents and communications that were subject to settlement privilege arising from a confidential judicial mediation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived privilege or that an exception applied based on the justice of the case.

The court found that the mediation was subject to settlement privilege, the plaintiffs had not waived the privilege, and no exception applied.

The court granted the motions to strike the pleadings relating to the mediation.

The court also struck out portions of one defendant's pleading as scandalous, but dismissed a motion to require another defendant to reinstate a withdrawn admission.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, sought leave to amend their respective statements of claim in two related actions concerning the management of the Stronach family business and trusts.

The defendants, including Belinda Stronach, opposed the amendments on several grounds, primarily arguing that references to a May 2020 Agreement were barred by settlement privilege.

The court found that the defendants failed to prove the May 2020 Agreement was intended to be kept confidential, and alternatively, that any privilege had been waived or an exception applied.

The court also rejected arguments that the amendments improperly withdrew admissions or were scandalous and vexatious.

Leave to amend the pleadings was granted.

The appellant brought a motion to amend a previous Tribunal order requiring it to provide a $3.3 million letter of credit to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) as security during an appeal.

The appellant requested that the Tribunal hold the security instead of DFO and that DFO be prevented from realizing the security until 90 days after the Tribunal's order becomes final.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, declining to act as an escrow agent to avoid becoming a party to future litigation.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to order the security held past the date the decision becomes final under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, as it would be functus officio.

This is an application for directions regarding the application of section 16 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to a case involving historical sexual offences.

The accused was charged in two separate proceedings: one in youth justice court for offences allegedly committed before turning 18, and one in adult court for offences allegedly committed after turning 18.

The court was asked whether the youth justice court would have jurisdiction over the entire time period if the youth justice court information were amended to cover the entire period spanning the accused's 18th birthday.

The court held that section 16 of the YCJA grants the youth justice court clear jurisdiction over offences alleged to have occurred during a period that includes the date the accused turned 18, regardless of whether the exact timing of the offences can be ascertained.

The Tribunal convened a pre-hearing conference to address allegations that counsel breached a prior confidentiality order regarding restricted access motions.

The Tribunal found no intentional disclosures of confidential material by either party.

To ensure clarity moving forward, the Tribunal issued a procedural direction ordering that all materials related to the restricted access request, including third-party materials, remain confidential and sealed.

The Tribunal also established a formal motion process for third parties seeking participant or intervenor status on the restricted access motion.

The applicants sought declaratory relief to prevent the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) from terminating their Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Contracts for failing to achieve commercial operation by the required milestone date.

The applicants argued that estoppel by convention applied based on a shared assumption that the IESO would grant an 18-month extension.

The court dismissed the application, finding no manifest representation by the IESO to establish a shared assumption, and noted that the entire agreement and waiver clauses in the contracts precluded reliance on past practices.