Margaret Jill Dougherty

Seven spirits suppliers brought an application challenging the enforceability of section 14 of the LCBO's standard purchase order Terms and Conditions — a "most favoured customer" no-price-discrimination clause — after the LCBO assessed approximately $35.9 million in chargebacks by way of set-off for breaches of the provision.

The applicants raised multiple grounds: ultra vires, statutory illegality, restraint of trade, unenforceable penalty/unconscionable forfeiture, waiver, estoppel by convention, bad faith, and unjust enrichment.

The court rejected all grounds, holding that section 14 falls squarely within the LCBO's statutory mandate to buy and sell liquor as a wholesaler and retailer, is not prohibited by statute, does not restrain trade, is not an unenforceable penalty, was not waived, and was not the subject of a shared assumption with suppliers that it would not be enforced.

The application was dismissed.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that a social worker committed professional misconduct by refusing counselling services based in part on the complainant's Chinese ethnicity and assumptions about social media use and boundary risks.

Applying the prima facie discrimination framework under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the panel held that the complainant suffered adverse treatment in the provision of services and that the protected ground was a factor in the refusal.

The panel accepted expert evidence on social work boundaries and cultural competence, found that the registrant failed to make adequate inquiries before asserting a boundary conflict, and rejected the registrant's procedural fairness and abuse of process arguments.

Some allegations were dismissed, including those tied to self-determination, referral adequacy, and the intake-form language error, but multiple standards breaches and Code-related misconduct findings were made.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found the registrant guilty of multiple acts of professional misconduct arising from counselling a vulnerable client, engaging in boundary violations and sexual misconduct, failing to maintain competence, and keeping deficient records.

The panel relied on the registrant’s admissions and an Agreed Statement of Facts establishing abuse of power, dual relationships, failure to involve the client in treatment planning, inadequate documentation, and sexualized communications and conduct.

A publication ban was ordered under s. 28(7) of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 to protect the client’s identity.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, noting that the registrant’s permanent resignation and undertaking not to practise provided robust public protection.

The registrant was reprimanded, publication of the decision and undertaking was ordered, and costs of $6,000 were awarded.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct arising from unauthorized access to child protection records and misuse of professional status to seek information about children at a school.

The registrant admitted the allegations, and the panel held that the conduct breached the governing statute, the professional misconduct regulation, and standards concerning integrity, records, confidentiality, and consent.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, emphasizing public protection, general and specific deterrence, and remediation.

A six-month suspension, reprimand, practice-related terms and conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs were ordered.

This appeal concerned a request for information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) regarding LCBO theft/shoplifting incidents.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) had ordered the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) to disclose the records, but the Divisional Court set aside that order, finding the adjudicator's decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal, stepping into the Divisional Court's shoes, found the IPC adjudicator's decision to be reasonable.

The court affirmed that the adjudicator correctly applied the "reasonable expectation of probable harm" standard of proof for FIPPA exemptions and that her reasons were adequate, even with confidentiality constraints.

The Court also declined to consider new statutory arguments not raised before the adjudicator.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the IPC's original disclosure order.

Following an appeal that was allowed in part, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The appellant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $59,600, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $40,000 all inclusive.

The applicants, a horse owner and trainer, sought judicial review of a Horse Racing Appeal Panel (HRAP) decision upholding penalties for their horse testing above the permitted threshold for total carbon dioxide (TCO2).

They argued they were denied procedural fairness regarding disclosure of testing laboratory records, that the HRAP decision was unreasonable, and that the rule establishing the TCO2 threshold was ultra vires.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness given the HRAP's efforts to mitigate late disclosure, concluding the HRAP's reliance on the testing evidence was reasonable, and holding that the rule was within the Registrar's statutory mandate to uphold the integrity of horse racing.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and Saugeen First Nation (SON) to costs from Ontario following a partially successful appeal.

SON had sued Canada and Ontario for Aboriginal title to submerged lands and for breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal allowed SON’s title claim appeal to the extent of remitting the matter back to the trial judge for a determination on a more limited portion of the claim area, while dismissing their treaty claim appeal.

SON had settled costs with Canada and was not seeking costs for the treaty claim.

The court found that SON was the overall successful party on the title claim appeal against Ontario, as they obtained the relief sought (remittal), and Ontario's position was to dismiss the claim entirely.

The quantum of costs sought by SON was deemed reasonable given the complexity and public importance of the appeal.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct based on admitted boundary crossings with a vulnerable former client in an addiction treatment context, including an intimate and sexual relationship shortly after the counselling relationship, receipt of private aftercare fees, and misuse of a protected professional title before registration.

The panel held that the misconduct reflected on current suitability to practise and supported jurisdiction even though some conduct predated registration.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed order imposing a reprimand, revocation, a five-year prohibition on re-application, publication, and costs.

The panel emphasized public protection, deterrence, abuse of trust, and the seriousness of title misuse.

The appellants, the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Saugeen First Nation, appealed the dismissal of their claim for Aboriginal title to submerged lands in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, and their claim for breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Crown's failure to protect their lands from settler encroachment under Treaty 45 ½.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the broad Aboriginal title claim but remitted the matter to determine if title could be established over a smaller, specific area.

The Court affirmed that the Crown breached its treaty promise and the honour of the Crown by failing to diligently protect the lands, but agreed no fiduciary duty was owed.

The Court also allowed the municipalities' cross-appeal, dismissing the action against them on the basis that a constructive trust over municipal roads was an inappropriate remedy.

The Toronto Star requested records from the LCBO regarding the number of shoplifting incidents at its stores.

The LCBO denied the request under various FIPPA exemptions, arguing disclosure would endanger safety, facilitate crime, and harm economic interests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court (majority) set aside the IPC's order, finding the adjudicator misapplied the standard of proof, misapprehended evidence regarding the risk of targeted thefts, and provided inadequate reasons.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct after the registrant admitted sexually exploitative boundary violations and record-keeping failures arising from a counselling relationship with a vulnerable student client.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached the profession’s standards, constituted sexual abuse within the meaning of the governing statute, and was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest approach to a joint penalty submission, the panel accepted a proposed order imposing reprimand, revocation, a five-year prohibition on reapplying for registration, publication of the order, and costs.

A publication ban protected the client’s identity.

The College of Early Childhood Educators appealed a penalty order imposing a four-month suspension and conditions on an early childhood educator for failing to supervise a child and breaching professional standards.

The College sought revocation of the educator's license, arguing the penalty was clearly unfit and inconsistent with the misconduct findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Discipline Committee properly considered mitigating factors, including a five-year period where the educator could not work due to unproven abuse allegations, and did not err in applying the principle of proportionality.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's decision finding he breached the municipal Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential and solicitor-client privileged information to external legal counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Integrity Commissioner's decision was reasonable because the applicant lacked authority to waive the municipality's privilege or disclose confidential procurement documents.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness during the investigation.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by breaching a condition prohibiting him from dispensing to or interacting with minors unsupervised.

The Divisional Court found the Committee interpreted the condition over-broadly and made palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding three of the four alleged breaches.

The appeal was allowed in part, three findings of misconduct were set aside, and the penalty and costs orders were remitted to the Committee for redetermination.

The College's cross-appeal seeking revocation of the appellant's certificate was dismissed.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) on informed consent.

The order arose from a patient complaint regarding the administration of conscious sedation during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's concerns about the lack of one-on-one communication and the applicant's reliance on staff for informed consent were supported by the record, making the HPARB's confirmation of the decision reasonable.

The applicant, Chair of the City of Hamilton's LGBTQ Advisory Committee, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report finding he breached the code of conduct by disclosing confidential information, and the City Council's subsequent decision to reprimand him.

The applicant argued the Integrity Commissioner lacked jurisdiction because the advisory committee was not a 'local board' under the Municipal Act, 2001, and that the process was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable to interpret 'local board' as including the advisory committee, and that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness throughout the investigation and council proceedings.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The appellant had repeatedly breached undertakings restricting him from performing dental implant therapy, resulting in harm to at least one patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was ungovernable and that revocation was the only appropriate penalty.

The Court also rejected arguments that the Committee's reasons were insufficient or based on irrelevant considerations.

Following prior findings of professional misconduct arising from boundary violations, inappropriate sexualized comments and disclosures, and deficient record-keeping in counselling sessions with a vulnerable client, the Discipline Committee determined penalty and costs.

The panel held that public protection, maintenance of confidence in the profession, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and remediation required a written reprimand, a five-month suspension, publication, and tailored remedial terms including coursework, reflective essays, employer notification, and practice supervision if the member returned to practice.

The panel treated the absence of mitigating factors flowing from non-participation as significant, while emphasizing the seriousness of the misconduct and the vulnerability of the client.

It also awarded the College $20,000 in costs, payable within 18 months, as fair and reasonable relative to the actual costs incurred.

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) brought two actions against the Crown and several municipalities.

In the Aboriginal Title Claim, SON sought a novel declaration of Aboriginal title to a large portion of the submerged lands in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay.

The court dismissed this claim, finding that while SON had a spiritual connection to the water and relied on fishing, they did not establish sufficient and exclusive physical occupation of the claimed submerged lands at the time of British sovereignty in 1763.

In the Treaty Claim, SON alleged that the Crown breached Treaty 45½ (1836) by failing to protect the Bruce Peninsula from settler encroachments, and breached duties during the negotiation of Treaty 72 (1854).

The court found that the Crown breached the honour of the Crown by failing to diligently fulfill its promise to protect the Peninsula from squatters, and by inappropriate conduct during the August 1854 treaty negotiations.

However, the court dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

The court also declared that Treaty 72 did not extinguish SON's harvesting rights, which continue on unsold lands and on sold lands where the use is not incompatible with harvesting.

Property-specific remedies and defences were deferred to a second phase of the trial.