3 total
Costs of $35,000 awarded to the respondent following the dismissal of a professional misconduct appeal.
Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $50,000.
The appellant argued for no costs or a maximum of $5,000, claiming the appeal raised an issue of public importance.
The Divisional Court rejected the no-costs argument, noting the appellant re-litigated factual issues, attacked the integrity of the discipline process, and constantly evolved his grounds of appeal, which increased the respondent's costs.
The court awarded the respondent costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
Appeal of professional misconduct finding dismissed; licensed engineers require a certificate of authorization to offer public services.
The appellant, a licensed professional engineer, appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct for providing engineering services to the public without a certificate of authorization and for breaching an agreement not to provide outside services while employed by the respondent.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Discipline Committee made no palpable and overriding errors in its factual findings.
The Court also confirmed that under the Professional Engineers Act, all licensed professional engineers require a certificate of authorization to offer or provide services to the public.
Finally, the Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding procedural unfairness, bias, and abuse of process.
Motions to amend judgment and pleadings granted; motions to add party and discontinue action adjourned.
The plaintiff brought motions in two related actions concerning an investment in a cannabis trust.
In the 2021 action, the plaintiff sought to amend a judgment against a defaulting defendant, add a new defendant, and amend the statement of claim to include claims under the Securities Act.
In the 2022 action, the plaintiff sought to discontinue the claim against the new defendant to consolidate it into the 2021 action.
The court granted the unopposed motions to amend the judgment and the statement of claim for existing defendants.
The motions concerning the new defendant were adjourned because he had not been properly served.
