Valerie Wise

The Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) appealed a motion judge's order finding it in civil contempt of a 2023 consent order and imposing a $30,000 fine.

The consent order prohibited the OAA from issuing licences to architectural technologists based on an internal policy.

The motion judge found the OAA breached the order when its Registration Committee directed the issuance of limited licences under section 25 of the Architects Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt finding, holding that the motion judge failed to establish that the consent order clearly and unambiguously prohibited the statutory exemption process, failed to find intentional disobedience, and failed to properly exercise discretion regarding the appropriateness of a contempt finding.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring him to complete a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (SCERP) following several adverse event reports at his clinic.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and the process was procedurally unfair due to skewed chart selection and alleged bias by the College's assessor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC owed a relatively low degree of procedural fairness which was met, and that its decision was reasonable, justified, and intelligible based on the evidence of poor clinical care and deficient record-keeping.

The court found the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) in contempt of court for circumventing a court order prohibiting it from licensing architectural technologists except as authorized by regulation.

After a prior order voided technologist licences, the OAA issued architect licences to technologists with the same practice restrictions as the banned licences, using a statutory committee process.

The court held this was a breach of both the letter and spirit of the order, as the process was a disguised continuation of the prohibited policy.

The decision reviews the statutory context, the events after the order, and the legal test for contempt, concluding that the OAA intentionally disobeyed the order.

The appellant doctor performed a septorhinoplasty on a patient and charged professional and facility fees for the rhinoplasty component, claiming it was uninsured.

The Ministry of Health determined the entire procedure was medically necessary and therefore an insured service, requiring the doctor to reimburse the patient.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board confirmed the Ministry's decision.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding its interpretation of the Schedule of Benefits was correct and its factual determination that the rhinoplasty was medically necessary was reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the Homewood defendants and $1,000 to the defendant doctor.

This is an appeal from an Associate Judge's interlocutory order dismissing a motion to extend discovery time limits in a simplified procedure action and to examine non-parties.

The Associate Judge had concluded she lacked discretion to extend time under Rule 76.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellate court found that the Associate Judge erred in this conclusion, holding that general rules (such as Rule 3.02) allow for extension of time limits in simplified procedure actions unless explicitly exempted.

The court set aside the order dismissing the appellants' motion and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding costs and examination of non-parties.

The matter was remitted to the Associate Judge for further orders consistent with the finding of discretion.

The Member, an elementary school teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in a pattern of inappropriate communications and boundary violations with two female students.

Over several years, the Member sent hundreds of personal emails and messages, gave gifts with hidden messages, and failed to report concerns about a student's well-being.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of failing to maintain professional standards, emotional abuse, and disgraceful conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and a six-month suspension, noting the Member had already resigned his teaching certificate and undertaken never to reapply.

The Registrant, a dental hygienist, admitted to professional misconduct for making false chart entries to conceal that a colleague had provided dental hygiene services to the colleague's spouse.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Registrant committed professional misconduct, including falsifying records and acting in a conflict of interest.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a two-month suspension, a reprimand, completion of an ethics course, and $5,000 in costs.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which ordered him to be cautioned regarding informed consent for cataract surgery.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was not provided with the clinical findings of another physician obtained during the investigation, and that the ICRC's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness at the investigative stage is limited and the applicant had sufficient notice of the complaint to respond.

The court also held that the ICRC's decision to issue a remedial caution was reasonable and within its statutory screening function.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the allotted discovery time under the simplified procedure rules to examine two non-parties.

The plaintiff had strictly enforced the three-hour limit under Rule 76.04(2) during his examination, despite having examined the defendants for over five hours.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct to be sharp practice but concluded it had no discretion to extend the time limit under Rule 76.04(2).

The motion was dismissed, but the defendants were awarded costs due to the plaintiff's lack of professional courtesy.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for an order sealing the patient records of a complainant in a physician's appeal of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the College had not sought a sealing order at first instance before the HPARB.

The court held that the HPARB should control its own processes and develop its own jurisprudence on protective orders, and declined to permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal, particularly where the records were not highly sensitive and the complainant raised no privacy concerns.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, failed her Assessment Verification Period in the university's emergency medicine residency program.

She brought a motion for an interim injunction to prevent the university from reporting her failure to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pending her internal appeal and judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no irreparable harm and concluding that the balance of convenience favoured the university, which has a statutory obligation to report such outcomes to the College.

This case addresses a contractual dispute between a midwifery practice group (AMMA) and three former associate midwives regarding a clause requiring the withdrawal of hospital privileges upon termination of their agreements.

The court examined whether the clause applied to an expired contract, whether privileges were 'held through' the practice group, and if the clause constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade.

The court found the 'termination' clause ambiguous and, applying contra proferentem, ruled it did not apply to an expired contract.

However, it found that privileges were indeed 'held through' the practice group for the purpose of the clause.

The court also determined that the clause was not a restraint of trade under Ontario's formalistic approach, as it did not prohibit competition but merely required the withdrawal of privileges obtained through the association.

The application was dismissed against one respondent (whose contract expired) but allowed against the other two (whose contracts were terminated).

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to caution her.

The ICRC had found the applicant failed to attend the hospital to assess a decompensating patient.

The Divisional Court quashed the HPARB decision and set aside the ICRC decision, finding that the ICRC fundamentally misstated the medical records.

The contemporaneous records showed the patient was stable and resting comfortably, not decompensating or in crushing pain as the ICRC had concluded.

The HPARB's deference to a decision based on an unreasonable finding of fact was itself unreasonable.

Appeal from a trial judgment awarding damages for birth injuries caused by hospital negligence.

The trial judge found that hospital nurses negligently ruptured the membranes during delivery, causing the plaintiff to suffer hypotonic cerebral palsy with serious and permanent impairments.

The appellants admitted falling below the standard of care but contested causation and damages.

The trial judge awarded $5,568,393 in total damages, including $1,881,846 for future loss of income, and costs of $2,201,259.

The appellants appealed the damages award and costs decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful medical malpractice trial resulting in a $5.3 million judgment for the plaintiffs, the court assessed costs.

The plaintiffs had beaten their $4.5 million offer to settle, entitling them to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court considered the complexity of the case, the extensive expert evidence required, and the proportionality of the costs to the recovery, ultimately fixing costs at $2,201,259 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Following a trial judgment in a medical malpractice action, the court issued supplementary reasons to address pre-judgment interest and adjustments to future pecuniary losses.

The parties reached an agreement on these issues, excluding costs.

The court issued an order revising the total judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs to $5,568,393.00, inclusive of pre-judgment interest and adjusted future pecuniary losses.

This dental malpractice action involved two summary judgment motions based on limitation periods.

The defendant dental surgeon, Dr. Harper, argued the action was time-barred by the one-year limitation period in the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The defendant Hospital relied on the two-year limitation period in the Public Hospitals Act.

The court dismissed Dr. Harper's motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the plaintiff's discoverability of biological hazards.

However, the Hospital's motion was granted, as its limitation period was not subject to discoverability and had expired years before the action was commenced.

The minor plaintiff suffered a severe hypoxic-ischemic brain injury at birth due to the admitted negligence of the defendant hospital's nurses in artificially rupturing the membranes.

The defendant conceded the breach of the standard of care and that it caused the plaintiff's ataxic hypotonic cerebral palsy, but argued her cognitive and behavioural issues were caused by genetically inherited ADHD.

The court rejected the genetic ADHD theory, finding the birth injury was the sole cause of all the plaintiff's physical, cognitive, and behavioural deficits.

The court awarded over $5.2 million in damages, including $250,000 for general damages, $1.88 million for future loss of income, and extensive future care costs for therapies, supported independent living, and home modifications.

The defendant dentist moved for summary judgment in a dental negligence claim without filing any expert evidence on the merits of his defence, relying on previous case law suggesting defendants need not do so.

Following the release of the Court of Appeal's decision in Sanzone v. Schecter, which clarified that moving defendants must put their best evidentiary foot forward under Rule 20.01(3), the court dismissed the summary judgment motion.

The court held that the defendant failed to discharge his evidentiary burden to prove there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.