Sarah Shody

The applicant, East Durham Wind, Inc., sought judicial review of two municipal by-laws enacted by the Municipality of West Grey that prevented the construction of a provincially approved wind energy project.

The applicant held a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) but required municipal entrance and oversize haulage permits.

The Divisional Court found that the municipal by-laws frustrated the purpose of the REA, which was to facilitate renewable energy projects under the Green Energy Act.

The court declared the by-laws inoperative to the extent of the conflict and ordered the municipality to reconsider the permit applications.

Following certification of a securities class action, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the leave and certification motions.

The moving parties sought more than $1.18 million in fees and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The court emphasized the need for transparency, proportionality, and historical benchmarking when assessing certification-motion costs under Rule 57.01(1).

After adjusting excessive hourly rates and disbursements, and considering historical averages for comparable certification motions, the court fixed costs at $467,234 payable forthwith, with an additional $100,000 in disbursements payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to bring an action against Manulife Financial Corporation and its former executives.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the adequacy of Manulife's risk management practices and failed to disclose its massive unhedged exposure to equity market risk prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility of success at trial, and certified the action as a class proceeding, certifying seven common issues.

The plaintiffs, senior members of the government of Bermuda, brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence in a defamation action.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant architect falsified cheques to make it appear they received kickbacks from a construction project.

The impugned paragraphs detailed the history of the construction project, including the selection of the contractor and ongoing payment disputes.

The court dismissed the motion for the most part, finding the paragraphs were relevant and had potential probative value in defending against the allegations of fraud, though two specific portions were struck on consent.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order denying a temporary stay of their class proceeding and requiring them to deliver a certification record by a specified date or face a permanent stay.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the case management judge's order.

The court noted that commencing class proceedings merely to toll the limitation period without the resources or willingness to proceed in Ontario constitutes an abuse of process.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP imposing an administrative charge of $81,450 for 543 unauthorized payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the General Manager had no duty to refer the administrative charge issue to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, as the Board's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing unauthorized payments.

The Court confirmed the General Manager's authority to impose a $150 administrative charge for each unauthorized payment under the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004.

Furthermore, the Court noted it would have declined to grant the discretionary remedy of judicial review due to the applicant's delay in bringing the application.

The applicant, an older, white, disabled man, alleged that the respondent physician discriminated against him on the basis of race, age, and disability by treating him dismissively, refusing to prescribe requested medication, and terminating his medical care.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of dismissive treatment or that the refusal to prescribe medication was related to any protected Code grounds.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the applicant's medical services were terminated because he was confrontational, loud, and angry, causing a disruption at the clinic.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant physicians, who performed cosmetic surgery without formal surgical residency, were investigated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for potential professional misconduct or incompetence.

The College sought to have investigators observe their surgical practices, which the appellants refused, arguing the governing legislation did not authorize compelled observation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the power to 'inquire into and examine the practice' under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code encompasses the direct observation of a member's practice, particularly to protect the public interest.