Matthew Wilton

A 14-year-old child was apprehended and eventually placed in a secure treatment centre by court order.

The child's family sued the treatment centre and its social worker for negligence, claiming $40,000,000 in damages on the basis that the defendants treated the child as if she had been abused by her parents, which allegedly prevented her reintegration into the family.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that recognizing a duty of care owed by child protection service providers to the family of an apprehended child would create a serious potential for conflict with their paramount statutory duty to act in the best interests of the child.

The Court allowed the appeal and struck the statement of claim.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which confirmed the dismissal of his complaint against a police officer.

The complaint arose from an incident where police responded to a landlord-tenant dispute involving the applicant, who is elderly and disabled.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission's conclusion—that there was no reasonable basis in the evidence to proceed to a hearing for police misconduct—was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following the release of the court's reasons, the respondent requested that the court address an argument from their factum to strike out allegations concerning duties owed to a non-party.

The Court of Appeal declined to do so, noting that the motions judge was not asked to strike out those allegations, nor was the court asked to do so during oral argument.

The focus of the appeal remained on whether a duty of care was owed to the plaintiffs.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement with a registrant who sold convertible debentures off-book without the knowledge or approval of his sponsoring dealer.

The registrant sold $171,000 worth of debentures and received $28,200 in commissions.

The Commission ordered terms and conditions on his registration, a reprimand, $5,000 in costs, and a settlement payment of $28,200 to be designated for the benefit of investors.

The appellants, parents of a child apprehended by the Children's Aid Society, brought a negligence action against a secure treatment centre and its social worker.

The appellants alleged the defendants negligently treated the child as a victim of sexual abuse and failed to reintegrate her with her family.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding the defendants owed a duty of care only to the child.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it was not plain and obvious that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to the parents under the Anns test, given the statutory framework of the Child and Family Services Act and the specific court orders involved.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court order that set aside decisions of its Discipline Committee and remitted the matter for a rehearing.

The Divisional Court had concluded that the Committee's refusal to grant an adjournment to the respondent physician raised fairness and natural justice concerns.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Divisional Court's decision and noting that the public interest could be protected during an adjournment by imposing terms.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing his action for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding malicious prosecution, as the appellant failed to adduce evidence showing an absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice.

The Court also dismissed the false arrest and imprisonment claims, finding that the police had lawful grounds for the arrest and authorization to enter the dwelling under a search warrant.

Dr. Krop, a practitioner of environmental medicine, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standard of practice.

The appellant argued that the investigation was improper, the Committee lacked jurisdiction, the prosecution was for an improper purpose, the wrong standard of practice test was applied, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the prosecution was an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the Committee correctly applied the test for standard of practice and that the appellant's diagnostic and treatment techniques lacked scientific validity and fell below the standard of practice.

The appellant appealed an order staying her main action after she had signed a release in settling an earlier negligence action against one participant in a dental implant procedure.

In the subsequent action against another dentist and her former lawyer, both defendants commenced third party proceedings against the settling defendant, who then obtained a stay of both the third party proceedings and the main action as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal held there was no proper basis to stay the main action, particularly where any reliance on the release by non-parties would require adjudication of the privity exception discussed in Fraser River.

The appeal was allowed, the stay of the main action was set aside, and the appellant was held to her undertaking not to pursue claims that could trigger contribution or indemnity claims against the released party.