Mark L. Edwards

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision that barred her application for statutory accident benefits due to late notice.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the notice requirements under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the limitation period and the reasonableness of the delayed notice were questions of mixed fact and law, which fall outside the court's statutory jurisdiction to hear appeals on questions of law only.

The court also noted the appellant improperly raised new arguments not advanced before the Tribunal.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability in a civil action arising from historical sexual assaults committed by the defendant, who had previously pleaded guilty to indecent assault charges involving the plaintiffs.

The court held that s. 22.1 of the Evidence Act made the convictions proof of the essential facts of the offences and that abuse of process prevented the defendant from denying liability in the civil proceeding.

Applying the summary judgment principles in Hryniak and the caution in Butera regarding partial summary judgment, the court concluded this was one of the rare and clearest cases where liability could be readily bifurcated from damages and causation.

Partial summary judgment on liability was granted, with damages and causation left for trial.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding his entitlement to an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in calculating his IRB by deducting post-accident income, failing to quantify ongoing benefits, and denying a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT correctly applied the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to calculate the IRB, reasonably exercised its discretion in finding the ongoing quantum issue moot, and applied the correct legal test in denying the special award.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a condition attached to their liquor and cannabis licences that prohibited the former owner from being employed in any capacity.

The Registrar imposed the condition under the Risk Based Licensing regime without disclosing the underlying risk assessment summary or providing particulars of the alleged infractions.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Registrar breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate notice and disclosure, which prevented the applicants from knowing the case they had to meet.

The decisions were quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Two registered nurses sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had directed the nurses to be cautioned and complete remedial education after they made public statements and social media posts spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and public health measures while identifying themselves as nurses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the ICRC reasonably balanced the nurses' Charter right to freedom of expression with the College's statutory mandate to protect the public interest.

The Court held that the remedial actions were proportionate and that the ICRC did not exceed its jurisdiction as a screening committee.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's (CPSO) disposition of his complaint against a pediatric hepatologist.

The applicant alleged the physician provided inadequate care to his son, who died shortly after being discharged from the hospital, and falsified medical records.

The CPSO's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) investigated and ordered the physician to be cautioned regarding record-keeping and sepsis assessment, but declined to refer the matter to the Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC and HPARB decisions were reasonable, free of bias, and supported by adequate reasons.

The employer applied for judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding its sick leave administration practices.

The employer had retained a third-party administrator and required employees to communicate with it, complete comprehensive medical forms for absences over five days, and use a specific form for return-to-work accommodations.

The Arbitrator found these practices violated the collective agreement, which specified communication with supervisors and limited the scope of medical information required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement to be reasonable and consistent with arbitral jurisprudence protecting employee privacy.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Ontario College of Pharmacists imposing a 14-month suspension and other remedial terms.

The appellant had been duped into filling thousands of fraudulent prescriptions for dangerous narcotics due to her failure to take basic professional steps.

The Divisional Court applied the appellate standard of review and found no error in principle, concluding that the penalty was not clearly unfit and was well within the range of reasonable outcomes given the colossal scale of the professional shortcomings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 payable forthwith to the responding construction company.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of O'Bonsawin J. dated November 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision quashing her application for judicial review against the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP).

The applicant sought survivor benefits following the death of a plan member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, upholding the finding that HOOPP is a private pension plan not exercising a statutory power or state authority, and therefore its decisions are not subject to judicial review.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision not to apply issue estoppel or in the costs award.

The Royal Bank of Canada sought to set aside a property transfer from the defendant debtor to his wife as a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and Assignments and Preferences Act.

The defendants were noted in default, deeming the factual allegations of fraudulent intent admitted.

The court found the transfer suspicious due to its timing (after the plaintiff's claim was served) and the close relationship between the transferor and transferee, consistent with "badges of fraud." The court declared the conveyance null and void, restoring joint title, but declined to award additional damages due to lack of specific proof.

Following a judgment awarding the plaintiff approximately $174,000 in damages for a failed real estate transaction, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff had served an offer to settle for $135,000 plus costs, which the defendants did not accept.

Because the final judgment was considerably more favourable than the plaintiff's offer, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $18,000 all inclusive, and prejudgment interest of $7,099.57 was also awarded.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident trial sought leave for late service of expert reports regarding past and future income loss and medical rehabilitation needs, citing cost as the reason.

The court denied leave, finding the explanation unreasonable and that granting leave would cause undue delay to the empanelled jury trial.

The court also limited the jury questions to general damages only, refusing to put questions on income loss, competitive advantage, or medical/housekeeping expenses due to insufficient evidentiary basis.

The jury awarded $25,000 in general damages, which resulted in a zero net award after the statutory deductible.

Youssef Messoudi was found guilty of importing 754 grams of methoxyacetyl fentanyl, an analogue of fentanyl with an estimated street value of $23-38 million, and occupying a vehicle with a prohibited weapon.

The Crown sought a sentence of 15-20 years, while the defence proposed 8 years.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as paramount for fentanyl offences, acknowledging the drug's extreme danger and societal impact.

While considering the offender's youth (23 years old) and rehabilitative efforts (completing high school), the court found him to be involved beyond a simple street trafficker.

A Charter s. 10(a) breach (failure to promptly inform of arrest reason) was found but did not warrant a sentence reduction due to lack of deliberate police misconduct.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 years for importing fentanyl and 3 years concurrent for the firearms offence, with a credit of 1 year for pre-trial custody and house arrest, resulting in a total sentence of 11 years imprisonment.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice claim, arguing the plaintiffs lacked expert evidence on negligence, standard of care, and causation.

Despite previous adjournments and an order for production of expert reports, the plaintiffs failed to provide any.

The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action, emphasizing the critical need for expert evidence in medical malpractice cases and the unreasonableness of further delay.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs due to the plaintiff's unfounded and vitriolic allegations of fraud and dishonesty against them, which continued even in his costs submissions.

The plaintiff, self-represented, also raised impecuniosity.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $17,500, finding the allegations against the lawyers' professional integrity warranted such an award, despite the plaintiff's impecuniosity claim and some potential duplication of defence counsel hours.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.

The plaintiff, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented defendant's costs submissions were found to be lengthy, inappropriate, scandalous, and vexatious, failing to address the relevant factors under Rule 57.01.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $1,500 to the plaintiff, emphasizing the need for fair and reasonable costs and the losing party's reasonable expectation of payment.

The appellant, LawPro, appealed a motion judge's order limiting its recovery of judgment enforcement costs to the steps explicitly listed in Rule 60.19(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act provides broad jurisdiction to award costs of enforcement, and is not restricted by Rule 60.19(1).

The court awarded LawPro its costs for a related fraudulent conveyances action, finding it was incidental to enforcing the judgment, but declined to award costs for responding to the respondents' consumer proposals.

The court fixed the enforcement costs at $30,000 for reasons of proportionality.