Lujza Tunde Csanyi

The defendant moved under Rule 49.09(a) to enforce a purported settlement and require the plaintiffs to execute a full and final release.

The plaintiffs had accepted an offer to settle the 'Action', but refused to sign the defendant's draft release because its broad wording could preclude their separate application for judicial review regarding a federal dental care program.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that on an objective basis, the parties had not reached an agreement on all essential terms given the narrow wording of the offer.

The court further held that even if a settlement existed, enforcing it would not be in the interests of justice.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a member regarding his care of a Great Dane.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct by failing to reassess the dog after diagnostic testing, failing to adequately monitor and treat the dog, failing to communicate with the owner, and failing to maintain proper records.

Following the merits decision, the member retained counsel and entered into a joint submission on penalty, predicated on his undertaking to permanently resign from the profession.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, finding it protected the public interest and obviated the need for further penalty orders.

The applicant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a screening committee's order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP).

The applicant argued the remedy was overbroad as the committee's concerns were limited to record-keeping and communication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the committee had wide-ranging concerns about the applicant's practice, including post-surgical management, which justified the broader remediation program.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time for leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Shin Doi J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,575.

The appellant, a de-designated firearms instructor, appealed a costs order from a motion that struck and stayed parts of his second action (2022 Action) as duplicative of an earlier action (2018 Action).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the cumulative costs award fell below the $50,000 threshold specified in the Courts of Justice Act, which applies when the costs order itself is the subject of the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The appellant's solicitors, Stieber Berlach LLP, moved for an order removing them as solicitors of record for the appellant, Jeremy Williams, citing an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship due to the client's lack of communication, failure to follow instructions, and non-compliance with the retainer agreement.

The appellant opposed the motion but failed to file responding materials.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the relationship had broken down and that the appellant would not be materially prejudiced, despite the upcoming appeal hearing.

The court emphasized that the client's desire for the solicitor to continue is not determinative if the circumstances justify withdrawal.