Mario D. Faieta

The appellant dentist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The Committee found the appellant had sexual relations with two patients, failed to document informed consent, breached opioid prescribing guidelines, and directed staff to file false insurance claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors in principle.

The court upheld the mandatory revocation of the appellant's license and the Committee's costs award of over $450,000, and awarded $15,000 in costs for the appeal.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to restore his parenting time after the respondent mother withheld the children, alleging the paternal grandmother attacked their son with scissors and a knife.

The mother sought supervised parenting time.

The court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the mother's allegations of the attack and noted the mother improperly exercised self-help remedies by withholding the children.

The court ordered the restoration of the father's parenting time in accordance with the parties' Minutes of Settlement, with temporary safeguards including that the children not be left in the sole care of the grandmother, and granted the father make-up parenting time.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for interim parenting time with her seven-year-old daughter.

The mother was subject to criminal bail conditions prohibiting her from contacting or being within 500 metres of the child due to numerous criminal charges, including dangerous driving and assault.

The court declined to make an interim parenting order that conflicted with the criminal release orders, finding it inappropriate to make an order 'subject to bail variation'.

The court granted consent orders maintaining the child's schooling and medical care, and ordered a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The appellants, who provided negligent legal services to the respondent despite not being licensed to do so, appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent $41,000 in damages.

The appellants argued the motion judge decided the case on a novel theory of liability—failure to advise—that was not pleaded, denying them a fair opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the issue was clearly raised in the pleadings and motion materials.

The court also dismissed the appeal of the costs award, noting leave to appeal costs had not been sought.

The applicant father brought a motion for an order requiring the respondent mother to provide outstanding financial disclosure, including corporate financial statements and an updated Form 13.1 Financial Statement.

The court found that the respondent was not required to provide corporate statements for a partial fiscal year but ordered her to provide the statement for the completed fiscal year and an updated financial statement with proof of year-to-date income.

The court also admonished the respondent for uploading unfiled materials to Case Center and awarded costs of $4,000 to the applicant.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $6,037.59 following a motion for interim spousal support where success was divided.

The applicant argued the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable, including making uncorroborated allegations of abuse.

The court noted the respondent's lack of corroborating evidence but also found the applicant's claim for 7.5 years of retroactive spousal support on a temporary motion to be unreasonable.

Given the divided success favouring the respondent and the conduct of both parties, the court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs.

At a case conference, the court addressed temporary child support for two children.

The applicant father, residing in Bulgaria, had not paid child support since separation and failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

Based on bank deposits, the court imputed an annual income of $40,000 CAD to the applicant and ordered him to pay $609 CAD per month in temporary child support.

The court also noted the applicant's failure to pay $10,000 in outstanding costs orders and prohibited him from bringing further motions without prior judicial permission.

The Registrar appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that imposed conditions on the respondents' motor vehicle salesperson registrations rather than revoking them.

The respondents, principals of a car dealership, had failed to supervise employees who engaged in repeated dishonest conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT erred in principle by failing to ascribe appropriate regulatory responsibility to the respondents for the repeated misconduct and by failing to consider the overall context of the business operations.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a fresh hearing on remedy before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of reprisal.

The applicant had posted a negative online review about his former employer's shift assignment practices, prompting the employer to send a cease and desist letter threatening civil action.

The HRTO found it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had never claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Human Rights Code prior to the alleged threat.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision reasonable, as the anti-reprisal provisions protect access to the Tribunal, not public speech unconnected to a Code claim.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment that ordered primary residence and sole decision-making to the respondent mother, and required the father to maintain a $250,000 life insurance policy to secure child support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all parenting issues but noted a factual error regarding the existence of the $250,000 policy.

After the hearing, the appellant provided evidence that he had subsequently obtained the required insurance.

The court held that the trial judge's factual error was therefore not overriding and declined to remit the issue of security back to the trial court, leaving enforcement to the trial court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a dismissed action for delay and discharged CPLs, the respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court ordered the appellant estate trustee to pay costs personally, finding that he stood to benefit from a successful appeal because his law firm was owed $150,000 in legal fees by the deceased.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct, and fixed partial indemnity costs at $12,200.

The applicant challenged LAT and HRTO decisions arising from the denial of statutory accident benefits after the insurer relied on an IME report without producing the physician for cross-examination.

The court held that the LAT lacked jurisdiction to issue a second reconsideration decision more than a year later and while appeal and judicial review proceedings were already perfected, as that step was not taken within a reasonable time and offended functus officio and finality principles.

The court further accepted that the earlier LAT decisions could not stand because reliance on the challenged expert report without cross-examination breached procedural fairness.

The LAT and HRTO decisions were quashed and remitted, with costs of $15,000 awarded against the insurer on the LAT matter, but no costs awarded to the applicant on the HRTO matter.

The applicant wife sought a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty under s. 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Divorce Act.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars of the respondent's alleged cruel conduct and its impact on her mental or physical condition to meet the 'grave and weighty' standard.

The application for divorce on the grounds of cruelty was dismissed, but the matter was adjourned to allow the applicant to file a further affidavit after the one-year separation period had elapsed.

The applicant sought a divorce, spousal support, imputation of income, and reimbursement for various debts in an uncontested trial.

The court granted the divorce order but found the applicant's evidence insufficient to make determinations on the financial and property claims.

The court noted that an uncontested trial is not a rubber stamp and requires sufficient evidence and legal submissions.

The applicant was granted leave to file additional evidence, a DivorceMate calculation, and a factum to support her remaining claims.

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's order dismissing the action for delay and discharging certificates of pending litigation.

The underlying action involved allegations of misappropriated funds and breach of trust by the deceased plaintiff's family members.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Associate Justice's conclusions that the delay was inexcusable and that the loss of the plaintiff's capacity and subsequent death caused actual prejudice, making a fair trial impossible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's decision dismissing her motion to change child support and the related costs order.

The trial judge had found no material change in circumstances regarding the respondent father's income, declining to impute additional income for alleged undeclared cash, business deductions, or proceeds from the sale of a home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of the respondent's income and disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $7,500.

The applicant, an American web-based videoconference provider, sought judicial review of Ontario Health's refusal to verify its platform as a 'Verified Virtual Visit Solution', which prevented Ontario physicians from billing OHIP for services rendered using the platform.

Ontario Health required the applicant to store data in Canada, asserting the platform collected personal health information.

The Divisional Court held that the data residency requirement and the related OHIP payment rule were not ultra vires.

While the court found Ontario Health's conclusion that the applicant collected personal health information to be unreasonable, it ultimately dismissed the application because the applicant failed to meet other mandatory technical and privacy assessment requirements.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 24-year traditional marriage.

The respondent argued that the applicant's income should be imputed to full-time minimum wage and that support should be reduced due to alleged misconduct.

The court declined to impute income, finding no evidentiary basis to establish intentional unemployment given the applicant's age, lack of work history, and health conditions.

The court also rejected the misconduct argument.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, amounting to $4,236 per month.

Claims for retroactive support and health benefits were dismissed without prejudice to be determined at trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's Answer under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules for his failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders and child support obligations.

The respondent, who had moved to Dubai and ceased communicating with the children, did not appear or file responding materials.

The court found the outstanding disclosure was extensive and the respondent's true financial circumstances were unknown.

Applying the test from Mullin v. Sherlock, the court concluded no other remedy would suffice, struck the Answer, and permitted the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The appellant father sought a stay pending appeal of retroactive child support and costs orders, reinstatement of his suspended driver's licence, and a refraining order against further federal enforcement measures.

The court held that the appeal met the low serious-issue threshold in relation to the application of retroactive support principles and the departure from the presumptive three-year period, but the interests of justice did not favour a stay because the balance of convenience, clean hands, and delay all weighed against the moving party.

Relief under the support-enforcement scheme was also denied because the moving party had not satisfied the statutory conditions for driver's licence reinstatement or for preventing a federal licence denial application.

The court nonetheless directed that monies paid to the Director in excess of the prior unstayed costs order and any costs ordered on the motion be held pending disposition of the appeal.