Linda R. Rothstein

The appellant sought to certify a global class action against an Ontario accounting firm for auditor's negligence regarding a clean audit report used in a US private placement.

The motion judge denied certification, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario for the foreign investors and concluding that joinder was preferable to a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by mischaracterizing the claim as being about the foreign financing rather than the Ontario-based audit, and by failing to properly conduct the comparative access to justice analysis required for the preferable procedure criterion.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a discipline panel's decision regarding a nurse who was found guilty of professional misconduct following criminal convictions for child pornography offences.

The nurse had resigned prior to the hearing, and the panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction to revoke his certificate of registration because it was 'non-existent'.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the panel's interpretation unreasonable and contrary to the broad, purposive intent of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Court held that the College retains continuing jurisdiction to impose sanctions, including revocation, on former members to protect the public.

The Court set aside the panel's penalty and ordered the revocation of the respondent's certificate.

The appellant nurse appealed a penalty order from the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

She argued the Panel was functus officio when it issued its reasons after the order, that it lacked jurisdiction to order her participation in a quality assurance program, and that the penalty was disproportionately harsh.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel had a statutory duty to issue written reasons, possessed broad remedial discretion under the Health Professions Procedural Code, and imposed a reasonable penalty aimed at protecting the public interest.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its motion to certify a global class action against an Ontario accounting firm for negligence and negligent misrepresentation in an audit report.

The Divisional Court (majority) upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that joinder was the preferable procedure and that Ontario lacked a real and substantial connection to the claims of the foreign investors.

The appeal and a motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and certified the class action.

The applicant, a registered nurse, was found unconscious at work after using narcotics misappropriated from the hospital.

He admitted to a drug addiction.

The College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordered him to undergo an independent medical examination.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that a report from his treating addiction specialist was sufficient and that the order violated his Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the ICRC's statutory requirement to find 'reasonable and probable grounds' before ordering an examination adequately balances Charter values, and that a treating physician's report does not substitute for an independent medical examination.

The appellants, representing former Barbados participating policyholders of Manulife, brought a class action for negligence.

They claimed Manulife owed them a duty of care to protect their interests when it transferred their policies to another insurer in 1996, three years before Manulife demutualized and distributed $9 billion to its participating policyholders.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that while harm was foreseeable, policy reasons negated a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the claim was for pure economic loss and did not fall within established categories.

The Court found no prima facie duty of care because the relationship lacked sufficient proximity, as the policyholders had no legally recognized right to share in a future demutualization at the time of the transfer, and the governing legislation permitted Manulife to terminate the relationship.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed the College of Nurses' refusal to issue her a certificate of registration.

The appellant had failed the mandatory registration examination four times and requested to review her examination questions and answers, which the College refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable as there is no discretion to register an applicant who has not passed the examination, and the College had legitimate reasons for refusing the review request.

The appellants requested a suspension of the court's judgment released on June 10, 2013.

On consent of the respondent, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered that the judgment be suspended until June 25, 2013, to allow for an orderly winding-down of the operations of RX Processing Services Inc.

The appellants operated an online pharmacy selling prescription drugs to Americans, with a call center located in Ontario.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists sought an injunction to stop the appellants from selling drugs without accreditation and using restricted terms.

The application judge granted the injunction, finding the sales occurred in Ontario and the College had jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a purposive approach to the legislation confirmed the sales took place in Ontario and that there was a sufficient connection to ground the College's jurisdiction to protect the public interest.

Following a successful motion by non-parties to set aside an ex parte Anton Piller order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful non-parties sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that the order should never have been obtained and that their legal expenses were reasonable given the urgency and intrusiveness of the order.

The applicants opposed substantial indemnity costs and argued that the matter had been overworked and that no misconduct justified enhanced costs.

The court held that although the Anton Piller order had been set aside, there was no intentional or improper conduct in obtaining the ex parte order that would justify substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and approval of class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The class action alleged negligent design and manufacture of elevator “sheave jammer” braking devices and breach of maintenance contracts following a regulatory order requiring their replacement.

The parties reached a mediated settlement establishing a $12 million settlement fund for class members who incurred costs replacing the devices.

The court held the settlement fell within the range of reasonableness given litigation risks, including uncertainty in proving defectiveness and potential reduction of damages through betterment arguments.

The court approved the settlement, class counsel fees, and a $15,000 honorarium for one representative plaintiff, but declined compensation for the second representative plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed the Registration Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario's refusal to annul her third unsuccessful attempt at the Canadian Practical Nurse Registration Examination.

The appellant argued she experienced health concerns during the exam.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the nature, extent, and consequences of her illness to justify annulling the exam attempt.

Non‑party individuals brought a motion to set aside an Anton Piller order obtained ex parte in a dispute over an alleged breach of a referral agreement between law firms.

The court reviewed the stringent requirements for Anton Piller orders and Norwich orders.

Although there was some evidence suggesting a possible breach of contract by the respondents to the underlying agreement, the evidence did not establish the extremely strong prima facie case, serious damage, or real risk of destruction of evidence required for such extraordinary relief.

The court also found insufficient grounds for a Norwich order against the non‑party individuals.

The Anton Piller order was therefore set aside in its entirety and seized materials were ordered returned.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of Barbados participating policyholders, brought an action against Manulife following the transfer of their policies to Life of Barbados (LOB) in 1996 and Manulife's subsequent demutualization in 1999.

The plaintiffs claimed that Manulife owed them a duty of care and a fiduciary duty to protect their rights to participate in the demutualization.

The court found that while it was reasonably foreseeable that Manulife would demutualize, no duty of care or fiduciary duty was owed to the plaintiffs because their rights as policyholders were lawfully extinguished by the transfer agreement, which was approved by regulators in Barbados and Canada.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action and permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to include negligent design.

The class action concerned allegedly defective elevator sheave jammers that the defendants installed and later required replacement.

The defendants argued the motions judge misapplied the 'some basis in fact' test for certification by not weighing their evidence against the plaintiffs' evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting jurisprudence on the certification test and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision on either the certification or the pleading amendment.

The applicant, a registered nurse, sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which issued a Letter of Caution and required remediation.

The College conceded that the ICRC breached procedural fairness by relying on witness statements without disclosing them to the applicant or providing an opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court quashed the ICRC's decision and remitted the matter for a fresh determination, while dismissing the applicant's other jurisdictional and Charter arguments.

The applicant, Labatt, brought an application seeking an interpretation of a renewal provision in a previous sponsorship agreement with the respondent, NHL.

The application judge found that the parties had reached a new, binding sponsorship agreement, a position that Labatt had not pleaded or advanced during the hearing.

The NHL and Molson appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it was procedurally unfair and contrary to natural justice for the application judge to base his decision on a novel theory of liability that was never pleaded and to which the respondents had no opportunity to respond.

The judgment was set aside and the matter remitted to a different judge.

The appellant, a former partner at the respondent law firm, appealed the dismissal of his action against the firm.

He alleged that the firm's management owed and breached a fiduciary duty to warn him that his remuneration would be significantly reduced under a newly implemented compensation system, which would have prompted him to withdraw from the partnership earlier.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that no such fiduciary duty existed under the partnership agreement or at common law, that no breach was proven even if a duty existed, and that the appellant was already aware his compensation would likely decrease.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses, which found he committed professional misconduct while providing in-home nursing care.

The misconduct included failing to maintain nursing standards and administering a liquid without patient consent.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Panel's factual and credibility findings were amply supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs of $8,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a costs order of the Discipline Committee and brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the appellant was attempting an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying merits decision, which had already been upheld on appeal.

Furthermore, the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the test for admission as it could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result.