Luisa J. Ritacca

The plaintiffs appealed a case management master's order requiring them to post security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The earlier appeal had remitted the matter for reconsideration of the merits using the correct standard of whether the plaintiffs had a “good chance of success.” On rehearing, the master concluded the plaintiffs failed to establish a good chance of success and again ordered security for costs.

The Superior Court held the master correctly applied the proper legal test, carefully scrutinized the evidence and prior decisions, and exercised discretion appropriately.

No error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion was established.

The applicant sought relief from forfeiture after its month‑to‑month commercial tenancy at the Ontario Food Terminal was terminated.

The tenant argued that the landlord lacked cause or a legitimate business reason for termination and that the notice failed to comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The court held that the lease expressly permitted termination by either party on 30 days’ written notice and that the tenancy was properly terminated in accordance with both the agreement and the statute.

The court rejected the argument that the Ontario Food Terminal Board required cause or a legitimate business justification to exercise its contractual termination right.

Relief from forfeiture was therefore unavailable because the lease had been terminated pursuant to its terms rather than forfeited for breach.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse following his criminal conviction for sexually assaulting a vulnerable, elderly client at a long-term care facility.

The Discipline Committee found that the member committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing the client and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Relying on the certified court transcripts of the member's guilty plea and conviction, the Committee ordered the mandatory penalty of revocation of the member's certificate of registration and an oral reprimand.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the member committed professional misconduct by practising nursing while her certificate of registration was suspended and by failing to comply with a previous discipline order.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the member worked as a registered nurse while suspended, failed to attend an oral reprimand, failed to participate in remediation, failed to pay a fine, and failed to inform her employer of her suspension.

The Committee concluded the member was ungovernable and ordered the immediate revocation of her certificate of registration.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants (Hollinger Inc. et al.) sought approval of settlement agreements with their former auditors (KPMG) and lawyers (Torys).

The Non-Settling Defendants, including Conrad Black and David Radler, opposed the settlements, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the included third-party releases and bar orders would deprive them of procedural rights to discovery.

The court held it had jurisdiction under the CCAA to manage litigation as a corporate asset.

The court approved the Pierringer-style settlements, finding that the procedural rights of the Non-Settling Defendants could be adequately protected through active case management and the application of the principle of proportionality in discovery.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for misappropriating approximately $25,000 from her workplace and falsifying documents.

The Member, who held senior management positions, deposited cheques meant for other staff, altered payees on cheques, and submitted fraudulent expense claims.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations proven in the Member's absence, concluding her actions were deceitful, dishonest, and constituted professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration.

The defendants sought security for costs against non-resident plaintiffs in two related civil fraud actions involving failed investment schemes.

Following an appeal, the matter was remitted to reconsider whether the plaintiffs had a “good chance of success” on the merits, which could weigh against ordering security for costs.

The court reviewed extensive evidentiary allegations concerning the role of a law firm and its partner in facilitating investment transfers connected to the alleged fraud.

The court held that while the record raised genuine issues for trial, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “good chance of success,” particularly regarding whether the defendants owed a duty of care to non-client investors or participated in the alleged fraud.

Security for costs was therefore ordered on the same terms previously imposed.

The appellant appealed an order requiring it to deliver a signed release.

The motion judge had held that releasing an individual partner's 'agents' also released his law firm from vicarious liability for his conduct.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that while a partner is an agent of the firm under the Partnership Act, the firm is not generally an agent of the individual partner.

The appeal was allowed in part to permit the appellant to plead that the law firm was vicariously liable for the partner's conduct.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the respondent following his criminal convictions for two counts of sexual assault and one count of gross indecency involving a vulnerable person.

The respondent did not attend the discipline hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the criminal convictions were relevant to his suitability to practise nursing and constituted professional misconduct.

Given the severity of the offences, the breach of trust, and the respondent's lack of governability, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of his certificate of registration.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a case management master requiring them to post additional security for costs in complex civil litigation.

The plaintiffs were non-residents of Ontario and did not claim impecuniosity, but argued that the strength of their claims justified denying security for costs.

The court held that the master applied the wrong legal standard by requiring the plaintiffs to show an "overwhelming likelihood of success" rather than the correct standard of a "good chance of success" when assessing the merits under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because this constituted an error of law, the appeal was allowed in part and the matter was remitted to the case management master for reconsideration using the proper standard.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for practising as a registered practical nurse while her certificate of registration was suspended for non-payment of fees.

Over a 12-year period, the Member held herself out as a nurse, submitted fraudulent Annual Payment Cards to her employer, and performed unauthorized controlled acts on vulnerable clients.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Member's certificate of registration was suspended for a minimum of five months, subject to specific remediation conditions.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for her handling of an aggressive elderly client with dementia.

The nurse intervened when the client was found yelling at a roommate.

While the panel found the initial intervention to remove the client from the roommate's bed was appropriate, it held that the nurse breached the standard of practice by subsequently removing the client's shoes and pants, which escalated the situation.

Allegations of physical abuse, aggressive handling, and improper documentation were dismissed.

The panel imposed a penalty requiring the nurse to complete remedial sessions with a nursing expert.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for misappropriating narcotics, failing to administer medications, and falsifying records at a long-term care facility.

The Member admitted to the allegations, which included signing for narcotics not administered and falsifying removal times.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and terms and conditions on her certificate of registration, including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member, a registered practical nurse, committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain boundaries, accepting gifts, exercising undue influence, and misappropriating property from an elderly client at a retirement residence.

The panel found that the Member and the client had a pre-existing relationship, but the Member breached the Therapeutic Nurse-Client Relationship Standard by accepting significant gifts, including a car and large cheques, and by maintaining an inappropriate personal relationship while providing nursing care.

The allegations of undue influence and misappropriation were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The panel concluded the Member's actions constituted dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to disclose terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration to a prospective employer, and for accepting a position she could not fulfill given those restrictions.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand and a six-month suspension.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent nurse for inappropriate behaviour, boundary crossings, and misappropriation of narcotics.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the respondent dressed in lingerie and behaved inappropriately with a client, engaged in boundary crossings by visiting a discharged client and accepting gifts, and misappropriated narcotics from two clients' homes.

The Committee ordered a four-month suspension, a reprimand, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations on the respondent's certificate of registration, including a restriction from practicing independently in the community for 12 months.

The Applicant sought to renew its liquor licence, which the Registrar proposed to refuse based on past and present conduct, including multiple overcrowding violations and outstanding criminal charges against the true owner.

The Board found that the Applicant's history of multiple breaches of the Liquor Licence Act within a brief period demonstrated a wanton disregard for public safety and indicated that the Licensee was ungovernable.

The Board concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, and refused to renew the licence.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in their entirety and refusing leave to amend.

The pleadings alleged assault, breach of contract, malicious prosecution, unreasonable refusal of club membership, and defamation.

The Court of Appeal found that the new allegations were not raised before the motion judge and were inadequately pleaded, the membership refusal did not give rise to a cause of action, and the defamation claim lacked the required specificity.

The court upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to refuse leave to amend due to the passage of time and failure to provide proposed amended pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the respondent nurse for incidents involving a mental health client in seclusion.

The respondent was alleged to have verbally abused the client, denied him access to a washroom or urinal, forced him to clean up his own urine, and falsified the patient record to state that staff had cleaned it.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations proven on a balance of probabilities, relying on witness testimony, video surveillance, and expert evidence.

The respondent's certificate of registration was suspended for four months, and she was ordered to complete remedial education and notify future employers of the decision.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for alleged sexual abuse and professional misconduct after a student stayed at his home and shared his bed.

The Discipline Committee found the student's testimony regarding sexual abuse to be inconsistent and unreliable, while the member's testimony was credible.

The Committee dismissed the allegations of sexual abuse.

However, the Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain professional boundaries by sharing a bed with the student, which contravened the standards of the profession.

The member was reprimanded and ordered to complete a course on professional boundaries.