Michael Alexander

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report and the subsequent municipal council decision suspending her salary for 90 days.

The Integrity Commissioner found the applicant breached sections 10 and 15 of the Code of Conduct through social media posts following a defeated motion regarding flag-raising.

The Divisional Court held that while the finding of a breach of section 15 (discreditable conduct) was reasonable, the interpretation of section 10 (improper use of influence) to prohibit continued advocacy after a council decision or advocacy on matters outside council's purview was unreasonable.

The report and council decision were quashed and remitted for reconsideration of the penalty.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of two decisions by the city council to suspend her pay for 30 and 60 days, respectively, based on reports from the Integrity Commissioner finding she breached the code of conduct.

The first breach involved a social media post targeting residents who opposed her minor variance application, and the second involved conduct promoting homophobic and transphobic attitudes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Integrity Commissioner performs an investigative rather than adjudicative function, and that the council's decisions to accept the Commissioner's reports and impose the recommended sanctions were reasonable.

The court also denied the applicant's motion to amend her application to allege bias against the mayor.

The appellant physician appealed a disciplinary tribunal's decision revoking his licence to practise medicine for professional misconduct and incompetence.

The misconduct findings were based on the appellant spreading COVID-19 misinformation, issuing improper vaccine exemptions, and failing to cooperate with the regulator's investigation.

The appellant argued that the tribunal's decision unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the tribunal's Doré proportionality analysis and finding that the revocation of the appellant's licence was a proportionate response to protect the public interest and maintain the integrity of the medical profession.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, brought a motion to exclude specified material from the record of proceedings filed by the respondents in her underlying application for judicial review.

The judicial review application challenged the Integrity Commissioner's finding that the applicant breached the municipality's code of conduct and the municipal council's subsequent decision to suspend her pay for 90 days.

The applicant argued the Integrity Commissioner did not exercise a statutory power of decision and that the material was irrelevant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Integrity Commissioner did exercise a statutory power of decision and that the targeted material was relevant to the procedural fairness and bias issues raised by the applicant herself.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought costs following successful applications against three physicians who failed to cooperate with regulatory investigations related to COVID-19.

The court rejected arguments that the respondents were public interest litigants or entitled to costs despite partial success.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity scale against all three respondents, totaling approximately $40,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action against the defendants, a newspaper publisher and its writers.

The defendants published numerous articles and online posts referring to the plaintiff as a bully, fraudster, and habitual liar.

The court found the statements were defamatory and that the defendants could not rely on the defences of justification, qualified privilege, responsible communication, or fair comment.

The court also found the defendants were motivated by express malice.

Summary judgment was granted, awarding the plaintiff $300,000 in general and aggravated damages, $110,000 in punitive damages, and a permanent injunction.

The respondent College sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis or personally against the applicant's counsel for alleging bad faith and misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court found that while the respondent's factum contained an inaccuracy, there was no intention to mislead.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs or costs against counsel personally, noting that while counsel overreacted, the conduct did not warrant such sanctions.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive.

The applicant, a physician, sought judicial review of the decision of the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to appoint investigators to investigate his practice.

The investigations arose from resolutions of the Quality Assurance Committee and a patient complaint.

The applicant refused to comply and raised constitutional and procedural fairness issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the grounds of prematurity, holding that administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention, absent exceptional circumstances.