Scott Hutchinson

The applicant, the former Chief of the Thunder Bay Police Service, was charged with misconduct under the Police Services Act.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant resigned and brought a motion to quash the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent consented to the motion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that because the applicant had resigned, she was no longer a police officer under the Act, and pursuant to section 90(1), the Commission lost jurisdiction to proceed.

The misconduct counts were dismissed.

The Mizrahi Defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action based on a standstill provision in a Priority, Subordination and Standstill Agreement.

The plaintiff, a subordinated lender for a construction project, sued for $200 million in damages and other relief.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims fell squarely within the standstill provision, which prohibited enforcement actions until senior lenders were repaid.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the enforceability of the agreement was in play, as it was not pleaded.

The action was stayed for 30 days to allow the plaintiff to draft a new statement of claim for claims not covered by the standstill provision, after which the action would be dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking various forms of relief against the defendants and their counsel.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the motion was an attempt to re-litigate a contempt motion and a summary judgment motion that had already been dismissed and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and ordered that the plaintiff must seek leave before bringing any further motions in the proceeding.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the approval of a settlement in three consolidated class actions against three immigration lawyers for professional negligence.

The class members were Roma refugee claimants from Hungary whose applications failed or did not proceed while represented by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement of $500,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $181,500 and a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The applicant's motion to set aside a previous Divisional Court order under Rule 59.06 was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The successful respondents and intervenors sought costs.

The applicant argued against a costs award, citing impecuniosity and public interest.

The court rejected the public interest argument but considered impecuniosity in determining the quantum.

The Attorney General and the Justices of the Peace Review Council were awarded $7,500 each on a partial indemnity basis.

The intervenors, the applicant's former counsel, were awarded $23,000 on a substantial indemnity basis due to the applicant's reprehensible conduct in making unfounded allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace removed from office for misconduct, brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to set aside a previous Divisional Court order that had dismissed his judicial review application.

The applicant argued he was denied a fair hearing and alleged ineffective assistance by his former counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the principle of finality in litigation and finding that the applicant's complaints did not fit within the narrow exceptions of Rule 59.06 for fraud or newly discovered facts.

Following the successful appeal by the defendant overturning the certification of a proposed class action for unpaid overtime, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $300,000.

The plaintiff and the Law Foundation of Ontario argued that no costs or a maximum of $50,000 should be awarded, citing the novel legal issues and public interest nature of the case.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the novel points of law and access to justice considerations under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but held that the Act does not insulate representative plaintiffs from adverse costs.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $60,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of Adams Pizzeria (Prescott) Ltd., operating as Limit Exotic Lounge.

Following a police search warrant execution, officers discovered significant quantities of cocaine, prescription pills, and marijuana in the establishment's locked office, along with debt lists indicative of drug trafficking.

AGCO inspectors also found an illegal poker machine, adulterated liquor bottles containing maple syrup and vinegar, and evidence of after-hours sales and liquor being removed from the premises.

The Board found the licensee breached multiple provisions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

Concluding that the licensee could not be trusted to operate with integrity and honesty, the Board ordered the immediate revocation of the liquor licence in the public interest.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario sought to revoke the liquor licence of the Licensee following a police search that uncovered significant quantities of cocaine, prescription pills, and marijuana in the establishment's office.

Inspectors also found an illegal poker machine, adulterated liquor bottles, and evidence of alcohol being removed from the premises.

The Board found breaches of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, concluding that the Licensee failed to control the premises and permitted illegal drug trafficking and gambling.

The Board ordered the immediate revocation of the liquor licence.

Following a hearing on the merits where the respondents were found to have violated registration requirements under the Securities Act by selling convertible debentures without being registered, the Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission found that the respondents, acting as de facto directors, raised over $7.8 million from investors and took over $2.5 million in undisclosed management draws.

To protect the public interest and deter future misconduct, the Commission ordered permanent cease trade orders, permanent bans on acting as directors or officers, disgorgement of the management draws totaling $2.56 million, administrative penalties of $50,000 each, reprimands, and costs of $38,782.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine whether Momentas Corporation and its founders, Howard Rash and Alexander Funt, violated the Securities Act by trading securities without registration.

Momentas raised over $7.8 million from the sale of convertible debentures using an in-house sales team.

The Commission found that Momentas acted as a market intermediary and could not rely on the accredited investor exemption.

Furthermore, Rash and Funt engaged in acts in furtherance of trades and, as de facto officers and directors, authorized Momentas' breaches of Ontario securities law.

A subsequent hearing was ordered to determine appropriate sanctions.