Linda R. Rothstein

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.

The appellants, an architect and his firm, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects finding them guilty of professional misconduct.

The misconduct involved affixing a seal to a design not prepared under the architect's personal supervision and knowingly misrepresenting to a building inspector that construction complied with the Building Code despite the presence of non-compliant French doors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Committee's jurisdiction, its interpretation of the regulations, and its conclusion that peer evidence was not required to find the conduct dishonourable.

The penalty of a four-month suspension and costs was also upheld.

The defendants, eight major financial institutions, successfully defended an appeal of a decision denying certification of a class action regarding mortgage contracts.

The defendants sought their costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded, asserting the proceeding was a test case and involved a matter of public interest under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding the case was not a test case, did not raise a novel point of law, and was not a matter of public interest, but rather involved individual commercial mortgage contracts.

The court awarded the defendants modified partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 per defendant.

Beechridge Farms Inc. sought leave to appeal a decision of an Ontario Municipal Board Review Panel that ordered a new hearing.

The Review Panel had found that the original hearing member breached procedural fairness by refusing to grant the respondents a short adjournment to consider the implications of the newly enacted Places to Grow Act and its Growth Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Review Panel's conclusion that the refusal of the adjournment was unreasonable and a denial of natural justice.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motions to certify eight separate class proceedings against various financial institutions.

The claims alleged that the respondents incorrectly interpreted mortgage provisions regarding partial prepayment rights and early discharge penalties.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action as they relied on implied terms not supported by the express language of the mortgages.

The court also agreed that the proposed classes were overly broad, individual issues overwhelmed any common issues, and a class proceeding would be unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which found she committed professional misconduct by financially exploiting a vulnerable psychiatric patient.

The appellant had failed to attend the disciplinary hearing, claiming late disclosure of documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that by choosing not to attend the hearing, the appellant waived her right to raise procedural fairness and evidentiary objections.

The court also upheld the penalty, which included revocation of her certificate of registration, a $15,000 fine, and costs, as reasonable given the serious abuse of the nurse-patient relationship.

The appellant brought a proposed class proceeding alleging the respondent bank received interest on cash advances in violation of the criminal interest rate provisions of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge refused to certify the action, finding that restitution and breach of contract claims lacked common issues and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court affirmed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the class proceeding, holding that sections 23 and 24 of the Class Proceedings Act could be used to assess and distribute aggregate damages, thereby resolving the common issues problem.

The Court also found that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to achieve judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring it to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for an arbitrator interpreting a collective agreement against a statutory backdrop is patent unreasonableness.

The Court found that the arbitrator's conclusion—that the reintroduction of individual health premiums revived the employer's obligation to pay 100% of the employees' costs for OHIP—was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of the College of Nurses' acquisition of her occupational health and safety records from her former employer without her consent.

The employer had terminated the applicant for cause and reported incidents of professional misconduct to the College.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the records constituted personal health information under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, the Act expressly permitted their disclosure to the College for regulatory purposes.

Furthermore, the College's investigator had broad statutory authority under the Health Professions Procedural Code to request and examine the records.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding against the respondent bank.

The proposed class action alleged that the respondent received interest on cash advances at a criminal rate, in violation of s. 347(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and sought restitutionary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the restitutionary claims did not raise common issues and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolving the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The appellant moved to reinstate his appeal from the respondent's decision to revoke his professional licence.

The respondent opposed the reinstatement and, in the alternative, sought security for costs and the lifting of an automatic stay on a costs order.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time to perfect the appeal, finding that the appeal was not entirely without merit due to a potential reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the respondent's use of a former appellate judge as independent counsel.

The court also ordered the appellant to pay $50,000 in security for costs due to his conduct throughout the proceedings, but refused to lift the automatic stay on the costs order.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his certificate of registration for sexual abuse.

During the hearing, the College called an expert witness who was subsequently appointed to the Discipline Committee before the panel released its reasons.

The Divisional Court found that a reasonably informed bystander would conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the panel members had to weigh the expert's evidence while she was their colleague on the Committee.

The decision of the panel was quashed as void ab initio.

The appellant, a mortgagee in possession, sought to terminate a fixed-term residential lease on 60 days' notice pursuant to section 53(4) of the Mortgages Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's finding that section 51(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, which requires termination at the end of the fixed term, is paramount due to the primacy clause in section 2(4) of the Tenant Protection Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the Complaints Committee's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against a former associate.

The complaints related to a business dispute, alleged theft, and patient solicitation, rather than patient care or professional competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the investigation adequate, the decision reasonable, and no evidence of bias on the part of the College or the Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Toronto's appeal panel, which upheld a penalty of a zero grade for a course due to plagiarism.

The applicant argued that the penalty effectively prevented him from re-enrolling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no manifest unfairness or violation of natural justice.

The court noted that the appeal panel had considered fresh evidence regarding the applicant's academic record and reasonably concluded that the trial panel did not intend to impose a sanction that would necessarily permit re-enrollment if the student was otherwise ineligible.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court order that set aside decisions of its Discipline Committee and remitted the matter for a rehearing.

The Divisional Court had concluded that the Committee's refusal to grant an adjournment to the respondent physician raised fairness and natural justice concerns.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Divisional Court's decision and noting that the public interest could be protected during an adjournment by imposing terms.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The Attorney General of Ontario requested costs for a motion for a stay, despite no costs being requested in relation to the appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs of the motion for a stay to the Attorney General, fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) brought a motion for a stay of an order restraining its members from picketing at courthouses during a lawful strike, pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

OPSEU argued that peaceful informational picketing is a protected form of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and that a total ban was unnecessary.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for granting a stay.

While tentatively accepting jurisdiction as a single judge to hear the motion, the court dismissed the motion on the balance of convenience branch.

The court held that the public interest in ensuring unimpeded access to the courts, as established in BCGEU, outweighed the harm flowing from the infringement of the picketers' constitutional rights.

During a lawful strike by court workers, a Superior Court judge issued an ex parte injunction on his own motion restraining picketing outside courthouses in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The union appealed, arguing the injunction infringed its members' freedom of expression.

The Court of Appeal held that while the order infringed freedom of expression, it was justified under section 1 of the Charter to ensure unimpeded public access to the courts.

However, the court deleted a paragraph of the order prohibiting 'any activities whatsoever' as there was no evidence of non-picketing interference.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct relating to the misappropriation of narcotics.

During the discipline hearing, it was revealed that a panel member served on a hospital committee with the principal witness against the appellant, but this was not disclosed until deliberations had begun.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the undisclosed relationship and subsequent conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias that vitiated the panel's decision.

Given the circumstantial evidence, poor hospital record-keeping, and the passage of time, the Court quashed the decision and ordered a stay of proceedings rather than a rehearing.