4 total
Driver's licence suspension set aside as reporting psychiatrist never examined or treated the appellant.
The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence based on an unsolicited medical report from a psychiatrist alleging she suffered from a substance use disorder.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the psychiatrist had never examined or treated the appellant, and therefore lacked the authority to issue the report under s. 203(4) of the Highway Traffic Act.
Relying on evidence from the appellant's long-term psychotherapist and negative toxicology reports, the Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish that the appellant suffered from a substance use disorder.
The licence suspension was set aside.
Action dismissed decision
The Gilmans moved to dismiss a construction lien action and a civil counterclaim brought by 2675076 Ontario Inc. and Cesare Fazari, citing persistent non-compliance with court orders and undertakings regarding documentation of alleged outstanding construction costs.
The court found that 2675076 Ontario Inc. failed to diligently advance the construction lien action as required by the Construction Act.
Consequently, the construction lien was vacated, and the Construction Lien Action was dismissed.
While acknowledging the persistent non-compliance, the court, applying Rule 60.12, granted 2675076 Ontario Inc. and Mr. Fazari one final 30-day opportunity to fulfill outstanding undertakings for the Civil Counterclaim, failing which it would also be dismissed.
Request to reopen appeal denied; settlement agreement reached at case conference found enforceable despite duress allegations.
The appellant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order closing her appeal file regarding a new home warranty claim, arguing she was compelled under duress to enter into a settlement agreement during a case conference.
The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to enforce settlements and determined that the appellant's allegations of duress—specifically that the adjudicator told her she had already entered a contract—did not amount to coercion of the will.
The Tribunal concluded an enforceable settlement was reached and dismissed the request to reopen the appeal, as no grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18 were met.
Brother removed as estate trustee and ordered to repay funds misappropriated while acting as power of attorney.
The applicant sisters brought an estate application against their brother, the respondent, alleging he misappropriated their late mother's funds while acting as her Power of Attorney for Property.
The mother suffered from dementia, and the respondent had moved into her home, taking control of her finances and co-mingling her money with his own.
The court found the respondent breached his fiduciary duties by failing to account for the funds and using them for his own family's benefit.
The court ordered the respondent removed as Estate Trustee, dismissed his claim for personal care compensation, and ordered significant deductions from his share of the estate to repay the misappropriated funds, occupation rent, and unaccounted chattels.
