Michael Collis

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's registration as a real estate salesperson due to his status as an undischarged bankrupt, significant tax arrears, and failure to repay a loan from a client.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible and that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to revoke the registration, finding that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke her registration as a real estate broker due to professional misconduct, including accepting cash gifts and mobile phones from a client and making misrepresentations to the Real Estate Council of Ontario.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to suspend the appellant's registration for 28 weeks instead of revoking it, subject to conditions including a five-year prohibition on acting as a broker of record, restrictions on accepting gifts or entering lending arrangements with clients, and an order to pay $17,000 in restitution to the client.

The appellant, a registered real estate broker, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration and an Immediate Suspension Order issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant took advantage of a vulnerable client for personal gain.

The appellant requested the suspension be lifted pending the hearing and sought a sealing order due to allegations of sexual harassment by the client.

The Tribunal found the Registrar established a prima facie case but failed to prove the public interest required the suspension to continue, as there was no evidence of a pattern of conduct or risk to other consumers.

The Tribunal also denied the sealing order, finding the allegations did not outweigh the open court principle.

The Immediate Suspension Order was set aside.

The plaintiff alleged that his former spouse knowingly infected him with HIV and sued multiple defendants, including the federal Crown, an immigration medical examiner, and the employer of the spouse.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment dismissing the claims.

The court held that the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of material facts when he was diagnosed as HIV‑positive in March 2004 but commenced the action in 2008.

The court further held that neither the federal government nor the immigration physician owed a private law duty of care to the plaintiff under the Anns/Cooper framework, and there was no evidentiary basis for negligence or vicarious liability against the nightclub employer.

The claims against all moving defendants were dismissed.

The appellant advanced funds to a corporation controlled by a fraudster.

The fraudster used the funds to purchase shares, which he and his spouse pledged to the respondent bank in exchange for an increased credit limit.

The appellant obtained a tracing order for the fraudulently obtained funds, excluding assets in the hands of bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the bank acquired a valid security interest under the Personal Property Security Act and qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, thereby defeating the appellant's equitable claim to the proceeds of the shares.

The appellants appealed a mortgage enforcement judgment, arguing that the application judge erred by allowing the respondent bank to proceed by way of application rather than an action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 14.05(3)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes applications for declarations of an interest in land.

Furthermore, the procedural objection was raised for the first time on appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.