Martha A. Cook

The appellant nurse appealed a penalty order from the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

She argued the Panel was functus officio when it issued its reasons after the order, that it lacked jurisdiction to order her participation in a quality assurance program, and that the penalty was disproportionately harsh.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel had a statutory duty to issue written reasons, possessed broad remedial discretion under the Health Professions Procedural Code, and imposed a reasonable penalty aimed at protecting the public interest.

The appellants, pig farmers, purchased gilts and boars from the respondent.

The animals arrived sick and infected the appellants' herd.

The trial judge found the respondent breached the implied warranty of fitness under the Sale of Goods Act but dismissed the appellants' counterclaim for damages, finding they failed to prove their loss.

The trial judge relied on CAIS records rather than the PigCHAMP records used by all experts.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in his assessment of damages by relying on records without explanatory evidence and failing to resolve differences in the experts' assumptions.

The Court also found the trial judge erred by failing to determine the number of free replacement animals promised.

A new trial was ordered on the issues of damages and the balance owing.

On a summary judgment motion by an unpaid subcontractor, the court held that owners breached the statutory trust scheme under the Construction Lien Act by directing a large advance payment to a related company that supplied no services or materials to the improvement.

The court rejected the argument that lack of privity barred relief, holding that the Act's trust provisions protect parties further down the construction chain and discharge the owner's obligations only where payment is made within the statutory scheme.

The payment to the related company was outside the Act, did not engage s. 10 protection, and did not satisfy holdback requirements.

Summary judgment was granted for the unpaid subcontract amount, with liability also extending to the owners' directors and officers under s. 13(1).

The Member, a Nurse Practitioner, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to participate in the College's Quality Assurance program, prescribing testosterone (a controlled substance) without authorization, and failing to document her assessment and treatment of two clients.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms and conditions including meetings with a nursing expert, a mentorship arrangement, and mandatory participation in the Quality Assurance program.

The Member's subsequent appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding she discriminated against the respondents on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status by denying them a room at her bed and breakfast.

The applicant argued the room was unlicensed and therefore not a service available to the public.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's conclusion that the applicant withdrew the room offer upon learning of the respondents' same-sex relationship was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed an order granting his mother, the titled owner, leave to issue a writ of possession requiring him to vacate her home.

The appellant claimed an interest in the home via constructive trust based on oral promises and work he performed, but he had not commenced a counter-application or action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the only issue before the court was the title holder's right to possession, making the appellant's constructive trust evidence irrelevant to the application.

The applicants, a same-sex couple, alleged they were denied accommodation at a bed and breakfast based on their sexual orientation and marital status.

The respondent initially offered a room to one of the applicants, assuming he was a single man, but withdrew the offer upon learning he would be staying with his male partner.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' sexual orientation and/or marital status were factors in the decision to revoke the offer, constituting a breach of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $1,500 to each applicant as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to post Human Rights Code cards at the establishment.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding he breached a lease agreement, which rendered his option to purchase null and void.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence to sustain the motion judge's findings of fact.

On consent of the respondent, the judgment was modified to delete provisions regarding monies paid into court and a writ of possession.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct relating to an inappropriate relationship with a Grade 8 student.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse, failing to maintain professional standards, and engaging in disgraceful and dishonourable conduct.

The member admitted to communicating with the student via electronic messaging, issuing invitations to meet outside of school, and arranging to spend time with the student during detentions.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and publication of the decision.

The member also provided an undertaking to immediately resign his membership, never teach again in Ontario, and never seek reinstatement.

The appellant requested a hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission regarding the Director's Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse a Licence.

The Commission affirmed the Director's decision, noting that a licence is a privilege, not a right.

Given the appellant's pending criminal charges and financial obligations, the Director had no choice but to refuse the application.

The Commission noted the appellant could reapply once his difficulties are cleared up and he can demonstrate he will act in accordance with the law, with integrity, honesty, and in the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing against the member.

With the consent of the parties and pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations without a hearing.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the Member.

The Member consented to the motion.

Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations without a hearing.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct relating to the administration of the 2003 EQAO literacy test.

The member, acting as an Interdepartmental Special Education Head, instructed staff not to seal tests, provided inappropriate assistance to students, and allowed students to complete unfinished sections after the test period.

The member pleaded guilty to failing to maintain professional standards, failing to supervise adequately, and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension (reducible by two months upon completion of an ethics course), and publication of the decision.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in a personal relationship with a female student and maintaining contact after being instructed by the school board to end the relationship.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission on penalty.

The member was reprimanded and the decision was ordered to be published.

The Committee noted that the member had already completed remedial steps, including psychological assessments, a professional course, and counselling, which served to protect the public interest.

The Member pleaded no contest to professional misconduct for failing to adhere to a 'hands off' policy when she yelled at, held the wrists of, and pulled a crying student toward her, causing the student to vomit.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand to be recorded on the register and publication of the summary without the Member's name, finding this was an isolated incident of a relatively minor nature.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the member.

The member consented to the withdrawal.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, noting that the member's teaching certificate had already been revoked in a previous proceeding, making the withdrawal reasonable and in the public interest.

The applicant sought judicial review of the school board's decision to exclude a student from a regular class and require an assessment prior to determining placement.

The board offered a special education placement pending the assessment, which the litigation guardian refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's position was not unreasonable, and declined to order the deletion of the student's records.