Marie Pier Dupont

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct for failing to reposition a palliative patient, failing to wait for pain medication to take effect before providing care, and failing to maintain a therapeutic relationship with the patient's family.

The College sought a 3-month suspension, while the Member sought a 1-month or no suspension.

The Discipline Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a 2-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration, including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member, a registered nurse, committed professional misconduct while providing palliative night-shift care to an end-of-life patient.

The allegations included failing to turn the patient, failing to administer pain medication prior to bathing, and bathing the patient roughly causing skin abrasions.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member failed to reposition the patient and failed to administer the required pain medication, breaching professional standards.

However, the Committee dismissed the allegations of physical abuse and rough bathing due to insufficient and inconsistent evidence.

The proven conduct was deemed unprofessional and dishonourable.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal concerning a dispute among investors in a residential subdivision.

The appeal, brought by 1750714 Ontario Inc. et al., was dismissed.

The court determined the quantum of costs payable by the appellants to the respondent, 1750738 Ontario Inc., on a partial indemnity basis, considering factors such as complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court awarded a global amount of $32,000 to the respondent.

The applicant, a city councillor, sought judicial review of a decision by the city council to suspend his remuneration for 270 days based on a report by the integrity commissioner finding he engaged in sexual harassment.

The applicant alleged bias against both the commissioner and the council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the claims against the commissioner, finding he acted fairly and reasonably accommodated the applicant's health issues.

However, the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias against the city council due to public statements and conduct by members before the investigation concluded.

The court quashed the council's sanction decision but, rather than remitting it, imposed the same 270-day suspension itself due to the severity of the misconduct and the lack of an unbiased decision-maker.

The plaintiff sought leave to file a reply factum to address issues raised by the defendant and the admissibility of an audio recording.

The Federal Court determined that Rule 55 governed the request, requiring special circumstances.

The court found that the plaintiff, an experienced litigant, failed to meet the high threshold for special circumstances and dismissed the motion, awarding elevated costs of $2,650 to the defendant.

The applicant, the Mayor of Hawkesbury, sought an interlocutory stay of a municipal council decision regarding potential sanctions following an Integrity Commissioner's report finding she breached the Code of Conduct.

She also sought a sealing order for certain documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the statutory requirement that such reports be made public.

The request for a sealing order was also dismissed.

The respondent in an Official Languages Act application brought a motion to compel the applicant to answer questions refused on cross-examination.

The respondent sought information about the applicant's history of filing numerous language complaints and the financial settlements obtained, arguing it was relevant to whether an award of damages would be an appropriate and just remedy.

The Federal Court granted the motion in part, ordering the applicant to answer certain questions related to his history of complaints and the annual total of monetary sums received or to be received in settlements for language rights violations, finding this information relevant to the assessment of damages.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that a binding oral contract existed between the parties regarding a real estate development project, and ordering specific performance.

The trial judge found that the respondent's principal invested in the project on the condition that his son's company would build houses on 25% of the lots.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the oral contract's essential terms were certain, that a subsequent shareholder agreement's entire agreement clause did not invalidate the oral contract because it was not brought to the respondent's attention, and that specific performance was the appropriate remedy given the unique nature of the development and the inadequacy of damages.

The appellant, a police officer and union president, was suspended by the Chief of Police following criminal charges.

He brought an action for damages and declaratory relief, alleging Charter breaches and misfeasance in public office.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute fell under the collective agreement or required judicial review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the collective agreement expressly did not apply to the appellant during his union secondment, and that an action is a permissible route to seek relief in the nature of judicial review, particularly when damages are claimed.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a police officer on leave serving as union president, was suspended and barred from police facilities following criminal charges.

He sued, alleging interference with his union duties.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute arose either under the collective agreement or the disciplinary regime of the Police Services Act.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction and the action was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $40,985.14 under Rule 20.06, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably by pursuing a partial summary judgment contrary to appellate authority.

The plaintiff argued for costs in the cause or on a partial indemnity basis, and claimed costs thrown away for a prior adjournment.

The court found the motion was unnecessary and contrary to the principles of proportionality, but noted that some of the preparatory work would be useful for the main action.

The court awarded the defendant fixed costs of $15,000, payable at the conclusion of the action.

The respondents, Trillium Gift of Life Network and University Health Network, brought motions to dismiss and transfer applications challenging the constitutionality of liver transplant waitlist criteria for patients with alcohol-related liver disease.

UHN moved to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Charter did not apply to its clinical decisions.

Trillium moved to transfer the application to the Divisional Court, arguing it involved the review of a statutory power.

The Superior Court dismissed both motions, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Charter did not apply to UHN's adoption of the criteria, and affirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies without bifurcating the proceedings.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for unpaid work on a construction project.

The general contractor's contract with the owner had been terminated due to delays, and the general contractor alleged the subcontractor contributed to those delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring trial because granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings with the main action between the owner and the general contractor, where the subcontractor's role in the delay was a live issue.

The applicant and respondents, who are brothers, are involved in a dispute over the management of their mother's property and competing powers of attorney.

A fourth brother, who is not a party to the application, brought a motion for intervenor status and interim financial assistance, arguing he relied on his mother for financial support and housing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed intervenor had no legal interest in the subject matter of the application, would not be adversely affected by its outcome, and shared no common questions of law or fact.

Furthermore, adding him as a party two weeks before the scheduled hearing would cause undue delay and prejudice.

The request for interim financial assistance was also dismissed, with costs awarded against the proposed intervenor but deferred against his potential inheritance.