Megan E. Shortreed

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order transferring a matter from the Family Law Team to the Civil Law Team in Toronto.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was good reason to doubt the motion judge's finding on jurisdiction, the decision to have the matter addressed by the Civil Law Team was an exercise of administrative discretion that did not raise a matter of such importance to warrant leave to appeal.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, filed almost two years after the deadline.

The ICRC had required the moving party to complete a remediation program and attend for a caution regarding medication errors and inappropriate access to patient charts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed application lacked apparent grounds for relief given the reasonableness standard of review, and that the moving party failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the lengthy delay.

The appellant, a chiropractor, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of 11 acts of professional misconduct, imposing a 15-month suspension, and ordering costs of over $690,000.

The misconduct involved improper block fee billing, unauthorized disclosure of personal health information to a bank during a payment dispute, failing to provide a medical report in a reasonable time, and issuing false or misleading accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on liability and penalty, finding no errors in the Panel's procedural rulings, evidentiary decisions, or assessment of the evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, finding the Panel failed to adequately consider the principle of proportionality, and reduced the costs award to $450,000.

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

A case conference endorsement setting the timetable for an appeal and a motion to intervene by a proposed intervenor.

The court also directed that the appellant's 2022 judicial review application, which challenges the appointment of the discipline committee Chair under the Health Professions Procedural Code, be heard together with the appeal to avoid inefficiency.

The member, a registered practical nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to maintain therapeutic boundaries while working at a summer camp.

The member admitted to having sexual intercourse and engaging in further sexual activity with a 16-year-old camp counsellor, who was considered a client by virtue of being part of the camp community.

The member also admitted to failing to stop or report a colleague who provided cannabis to another underage client and consumed cannabis while on duty.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the member committed professional misconduct.

A joint submission on penalty was accepted, resulting in an oral reprimand, a 7-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the member's certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a registered practical nurse for sexually abusing a 17-year-old patient.

The nurse provided the minor patient with marijuana and engaged in vaginal intercourse with him while he was under her care at a summer camp.

The nurse did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the nurse committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing the patient, failing to maintain therapeutic boundaries, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the nurse's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, and reimbursement of up to $5,000 for patient therapy.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing the appellants' motion for summary judgment and declaring that the respondents' action was commenced within the limitation period.

The appellants argued the claim was discovered earlier, based on a 2015 telephone conversation and a 2005 memorandum concerning tax consequences of a trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in her application of the relevant statutory provisions and caselaw, particularly Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick.

The court agreed that the information known to the respondents' lawyer was insufficient to ground a plausible inference of liability without expert advice, thus the limitation period began later, making the action not time-barred.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario, which required her to complete a remediation program and receive a caution for working for two public health employers concurrently during the same shifts.

The applicant argued she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no factual basis for the ineffective assistance claim and concluding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable and justified based on the record.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a registered nurse for failing to adequately assess, monitor, and document a patient's wound care, and for failing to advocate for expert care as the patient's condition deteriorated.

The patient ultimately died of necrotizing fasciitis secondary to an infected pressure ulcer.

The nurse also failed to remain with the patient until an ambulance arrived.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a 3-month suspension, and terms and conditions on the nurse's certificate of registration, including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the member for crossing professional boundaries with a patient and engaging in inappropriate, sexually harassing behaviour towards two nursing colleagues.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the member committed professional misconduct by contravening the standards of practice and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering an oral reprimand and noting the member's undertaking to permanently resign from the profession.

The applicant, a registered nurse working as a security guard, applied for judicial review of the College of Nurses' refusal to remove his employment address from the public register.

The Registrar had requested documentation to support his claim that publication endangered his safety, which the applicant failed to provide before bringing the application.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, applying the principle against fragmenting administrative proceedings, and directed the applicant to submit the required documentation to the Registrar to create a full record.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

The court found the respondent's claimed rates and hours reasonable given the complexity of the motion and the applicant's conduct in ignoring requests for a case conference.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant, a registered nurse, moved for an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a decision by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had directed the applicant to appear for a caution following a mandatory report from his former employer.

The court found that the 30-day time limit under s. 5(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act began to run when the applicant received notice of the decision, not when the caution was administered.

The court declined to grant an extension of time under s. 5(2), finding the delay was unexplained, the proposed grounds for judicial review lacked merit, and extending the time would cause substantial prejudice to the public interest.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to maintain professional boundaries and sexually abusing multiple vulnerable mental health patients.

The Member admitted to engaging in personal and sexual relationships with several patients, including having sexual intercourse with three of them.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct, noting the conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, and reimbursement of up to $5,000 per patient for therapy and counselling funds.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing that the plaintiffs' former lawyer had sufficient knowledge of the potential claim more than two years before the action was commenced.

The plaintiffs contended that the information available to their lawyer was insufficient to trigger the limitation period, requiring further expert investigation.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the information known to the plaintiffs' lawyer was merely a suspicion and not enough to establish a plausible inference of liability, especially given the complex technical nature of the tax issue and conflicting professional opinions.

The limitation period was held to have commenced either when further due diligence was decided upon (February 22, 2016) or when a comprehensive expert opinion was provided (February 24, 2017), both dates being within the two-year period.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sheard J. dated January 10, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellant, a cryptocurrency mining company, appealed a motion judge's dismissal of its motion for the interim preservation of specific funds or assets purchased with those funds under Rules 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant had made upfront payments to the respondents for power supply, which the respondents co-mingled with general funds to build power generation infrastructure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct legal tests and made no palpable and overriding errors in concluding that the appellant failed to establish a right to a specific fund or identify specific assets to be preserved.

Two registered nurses sought judicial review of decisions by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario requiring them to be cautioned and, in one case, to complete a remediation program.

The applicants argued the decisions were unreasonable because the ICRC failed to address their submissions regarding inordinate delay (over four years) and abuse of process.

One applicant also argued the ICRC failed to consider her mental health disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court granted the applications, quashed the decisions, and remitted the matters back to the ICRC, finding the decisions unreasonable because the ICRC failed to meaningfully grapple with the central issues of delay, abuse of process, and disability.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from unnecessary sedative and repeat restorations, improper in-office lab and emergency exam charges, and widespread recordkeeping deficiencies affecting multiple patients over many years.

The panel found the admitted facts substantiated professional misconduct under the governing dental regulations and the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Applying the usual public-protection rationale for accepting a joint penalty submission, the panel accepted a reprimand, a five-month suspension, extensive remediation and monitoring terms, and a costs order.

Because a publication restriction protected patient identities, the reasons were framed without identifying patients.