Linda R. Rothstein

The College brought a motion to adjourn two discipline hearings against the Registrant sine die.

The Registrant had resigned his membership and signed an undertaking agreeing never to apply or re-apply for registration as a dentist in Canada.

The allegations included sexual abuse of a patient and criminal convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the resignation and undertaking permanently removed the Registrant from practice, thereby protecting the public interest and avoiding the costs and potential harm of a full hearing.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for abuse of process, arguing that the prior decision in Leavens v. Schwartz (the "Shotgun Decision") had finally disposed of the matter.

The plaintiff sought to challenge a buy/sell transaction that had been enforced by the court, alleging that the defendants had engaged in a secret investment arrangement with third-party financiers without disclosure.

The court found that the claim constituted an abuse of process because the underlying subject matter was identical to the prior proceeding, the issues could have been raised before the prior judge, and the plaintiff was essentially seeking to undo a final court decision with which he was dissatisfied.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend.

The College of Nurses of Ontario requested the dismissal of the applicant's motion to set aside a previous order under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The previous order had dismissed the applicant's motion to extend the time to bring an application for judicial review of a disciplinary caution.

The court found that the applicant's motion to set aside was brought out of time, failed to address the substantive issues of delay, and made baseless allegations of bias and misconduct against the motion judge and opposing counsel.

Concluding that the motion was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, the court dismissed the proceeding.

This decision concerns a class action brought by victims and families of the 2018 Danforth Avenue shooting against Smith & Wesson Corp., alleging negligence for failing to implement authorized user technology in its handguns.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the plaintiffs’ negligence claim should proceed as a class action, finding that the claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and that the certification judge erred by applying a merits-based test at the certification stage.

The court struck the strict liability and public nuisance claims, holding that Canadian law does not recognize such claims against product manufacturers in these circumstances.

The representative plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of Ontario franchisees, sought production of documents from the defendants (Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Shoppers Drug Mart (London) Ltd.) to support a “bottom-up” damages assessment for individual class members under section 25 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Court of Appeal had previously found Shoppers liable for breach of contract and duty of good faith, and ordered that damages be determined through an individual issues process.

The defendants opposed production on grounds of proportionality, prematurity, and lack of expert evidence.

Justice Glustein granted the motion, ordering production of the requested documents for all class members subject to the 2002 Associate Agreement for the relevant years, finding the request reasonable and proportionate in light of the litigation’s scope and the evidence before the court.

The applicant, Vivian Dubrofsky, sought interim injunctive relief under section 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) to restrain her mother, Maryka Weisz, from withdrawing funds from Art Tile Limited except for ordinary course expenses, pending final disposition.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and the applicant met the evidentiary threshold, she failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court ordered that the Westmore Property not be encumbered and that certain trust funds remain in trust, but otherwise dismissed the requested relief.

At a penalty and costs hearing following findings that the registrant sexually abused two patients and committed multiple additional acts of professional misconduct, the discipline panel held that revocation was mandatory under the Health Professions Procedural Code because the sexual abuse included sexual intercourse.

The panel rejected arguments alleging bias in the earlier merits reasons, held it was functus officio and could not revisit its findings, and found no merit in the contention that the patient relationships were merely incidental to employment or sexual relationships.

The panel also held that a victim impact statement was not a precondition to imposing penalty under s. 51(6).

It ordered a reprimand, immediate revocation, security for therapy and counselling funding for two patients, and substantial costs reflecting roughly two-thirds of the College's actual investigation and hearing expenses.

The court considered costs arising from the adjournment of a motion to remove Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP as counsel of record for the Defendants.

The adjournment was necessitated by privilege issues raised in the Plaintiff’s reply affidavit, which referenced potentially privileged communications.

The Defendants sought full or substantial indemnity costs, arguing the adjournment was predictable and should not have required a full day’s hearing.

The court found that while the Plaintiff’s position had little merit, it was not taken in bad faith or with egregious conduct.

Costs were awarded to the Defendants on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $66,658.81.

The Plaintiff brought a motion to remove Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP as counsel for the Defendants in a proposed investors' class action, citing conflicts of interest and allegations of professional misconduct stemming from Osler's extensive prior roles with the now-insolvent Wayland Group Corp. and its former directors.

The motion was adjourned because the Plaintiff's supplementary affidavit introduced serious new allegations and referenced potentially privileged documents received inadvertently.

The court ordered the Plaintiff to identify and describe the privileged documents in a new affidavit, allowing the Defendants to file supplementary materials and conduct cross-examinations.

The court emphasized the necessity of addressing privilege issues properly, despite the resulting delay and expense.

The appellants, representing a class of Ontario Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees, appealed a summary judgment decision regarding their entitlement to Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that Shoppers breached the 2002 franchise agreement by retaining the allowances, which constituted 'revenue', but did not breach the 2010 agreement, which explicitly allowed Shoppers to retain such concessions.

The Court also upheld the application of a rolling limitation period and the refusal to award aggregate damages due to the idiosyncratic nature of the profit-sharing model.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the quantification of damages, finding that Shoppers breached its duty of good faith by arbitrarily allocating $129 million as out-of-province rebates to avoid sharing the funds with Ontario franchisees, bringing the total Professional Allowances received to $1.084 billion.

In a multi-notice professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant engaged in false and misleading insurance billing by causing claims for his own dental services to be submitted under other dentists’ names and provider numbers, and in one instance on a false service date.

The panel also found extensive professional misconduct in opioid prescribing and recordkeeping, including prescribing without documented justification, exceeding College guideline quantities and frequencies without rationale, failing to document informed consent, diagnoses, treatment plans, and root canal safeguards.

The panel further found that the registrant engaged in sexual relationships with two employees who were also his patients, amounting to sexual abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical conduct.

A separate allegation of inappropriate touching involving another employee-patient was not proven.

Most allegations were upheld, with limited exceptions under one notice.

The appellant dentist appealed a discipline committee decision finding he engaged in sexual abuse of a patient and committed professional misconduct by co-signing a mortgage with another patient.

The committee revoked his certificate of registration and ordered him to pay costs and therapy expenses.

On appeal, the appellant argued the patient was his spouse under the statutory exception, relying on an alleged foreign divorce and religious marriage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the committee's finding that the sexual relationship commenced before the alleged marriage, rendering the spousal exception inapplicable.

The mandatory penalty of revocation and the costs awards were also upheld.

The applicant, an indigenous Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of a Justice of the Peace Review Council (JPRC) decision recommending her removal from office for judicial misconduct.

The misconduct involved a prolonged pattern of inappropriate intervention in her son's traffic ticket prosecution.

The applicant argued the JPRC majority failed to reasonably apply Gladue principles regarding her indigenous heritage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the JPRC majority reasonably concluded that the applicant's lack of insight and failure to accept responsibility meant that public confidence in the administration of justice could only be restored by her removal from office.

In this certified class action, the plaintiff franchisees (Associates) brought a motion for summary judgment against the franchisor, Shoppers Drug Mart, alleging breaches of contract, breaches of the duty of good faith, and unjust enrichment regarding various fees and the retention of Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

Shoppers brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, arguing they lacked merit and were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the claims regarding the Optimum Fee and Shoppers Charges, finding no breach of contract or bad faith.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim for Professional Allowances but found that Shoppers breached the 2002 Associates Agreement (but not the 2010 Agreement) by failing to remit Professional Allowances to the Associates.

The court held that aggregate damages were not viable and directed that the surviving breach of contract and distribution centre claims proceed to individual issues trials, subject to limitation periods.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from removing mature trees and commencing construction of a subway station on the historic Osgoode Hall site.

The LSO argued that Metrolinx's actions required municipal approval under s. 33(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding no serious issue to be tried because s. 33(1) does not apply to neighboring property owners or to prescribed public bodies like Metrolinx, which are governed by a separate statutory regime.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the critical public transit project to proceed.

The appellant, Glassdoor Inc., appealed a motion judge's order denying its anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action.

The action stemmed from an anonymous critical employee review posted on Glassdoor's website about the respondent, Echelon Environmental Inc. The appellant argued the review related to a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the review, concerning private complaints about a company providing specialized services to a small number of customers, did not relate to a matter of public interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was also dismissed.

The applicant sought to revoke a section 11 investigation order after the Ontario Securities Commission publicly disclosed his compelled testimony in a receivership application without first obtaining a section 17 disclosure order.

The Tribunal held that the Commission is bound by the confidentiality provisions of section 16 and cannot publicly disclose compelled evidence without a section 17 order.

However, the Tribunal concluded that revoking the section 11 investigation order was not an appropriate remedy for the improper disclosure, as the disclosure occurred after the order was issued and revocation would be purely punitive.

The appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, refusing to re-open the hearing, and revoking his certificate of registration.

The appellant had failed to attend the discipline hearing, claiming a medical emergency, but the Committee proceeded in his absence and later dismissed his motion to re-open, finding his claims of illness lacked objective evidence and were part of a pattern of delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the Committee's decisions to deny adjournments, proceed in absentia, refuse to re-open the hearing, or impose revocation as a penalty for grossly inadequate clinical care and dishonest billing.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against a former associate and several staff members who abruptly left to start a competing firm, taking over 200 client files.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case for breach of fiduciary duty and good faith.

The court granted the injunction, ordering the defendants to pay the outstanding disbursements on the transferred files within five months and to hold a portion of the legal fees in trust upon settlement of the files to protect the plaintiffs' fee accounts.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council dismissing his complaint against a justice of the peace who convicted him of a red-light camera offence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Council's investigation was procedurally fair and its decision reasonable.

The court noted that the applicant's complaints primarily concerned judicial decision-making, which falls outside the Council's jurisdiction, and that the transcript showed the justice of the peace treated the applicant fairly.