Lee K. Ferrier

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his licence for sexual abuse.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, noting that judicial review is rarely permitted when a right of appeal exists and was waived.

Furthermore, on the merits, the court found that the applicant and his counsel had clearly admitted before the Committee to conduct constituting sexual abuse that mandated revocation.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the wrongful dismissal of a legal assistant who had worked for the appellant lawyer for 17 years.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by not drawing an adverse inference from the respondent's refusal to waive solicitor-client privilege, by finding the respondent reasonably mitigated her damages, and by dismissing a claim for assigned disbursements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of privilege, mitigation, or the lack of notice for the assigned disbursements.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding a wrongfully dismissed employee three months' notice, an additional two months' notice for bad faith (Wallace damages), and substantial indemnity costs.

The employee, a 47-year-old single mother, was given two weeks' working notice and required to train her replacement, who had already started working before she was notified of her termination.

When she objected, the employer threatened to report her as having resigned to deny her employment insurance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the notice period reasonable and upholding the bad faith damages due to the employer's insensitive and misleading conduct.

The appellant sought a stay of an interlocutory injunction order restraining it from using the words 'Cricket Club' in its real estate development marketing, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test for a stay, finding that the respondent had a very strong case on the merits for passing off, and would suffer irreparable harm through loss of control over its trade name if the stay were granted.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the dismissal of an employee with schizophrenia.

The employee had a history of failing to take her medication, leading to disruptive behaviour.

The arbitrator found that the final incident jeopardized workplace safety and that the employer could not accommodate the employee without undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was not patently unreasonable and correctly applied the Meiorin test for accommodation.

The appellant appealed an order regarding spousal and child support.

The Divisional Court found no material change in circumstances prior to July 2002, as the appellant's income was significantly higher than the amount upon which the original consent judgment was based.

However, after July 2002, the appellant was unemployed.

The court imputed income to the appellant due to his failure to make reasonable efforts to find employment, but still found a material change in circumstances.

Spousal support was reduced to roughly equalize the parties' incomes.

The court also declined to order repayment of child support overpayments, setting them off against previous underpayments.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant wife appealed an interim order restraining her from sending scurrilous letters to third parties about her husband, and a sealing order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that such letters can constitute harassment under section 46 of the Family Law Act.

The court held that while the order infringed the appellant's freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, it was justified under section 1 as a proportionate measure given its narrow scope and limited duration.

The sealing order was also upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Board of Inquiry, which held that it had jurisdiction to continue hearing a human rights complaint after the Ontario Human Rights Commission withdrew its carriage of the proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that under the Human Rights Code, a Board of Inquiry may not proceed in the absence of the Commission.

The Court held that the Commission cannot delegate carriage of the complaint to the complainant, and that the public interest representation of the Commission is required for the hearing to proceed.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review under sections 2 and 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court was not persuaded to interfere with the order under appeal and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $700 for disbursements to the respondent.