Michael Wilchesky

The appellant, John Dunford, appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages against the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation.

Dunford alleged that Dr. James E. Anderson, who was involved with the Cool School program, sexually abused him and that the hospital was vicariously liable.

The trial judge found that Dr. Anderson committed the tort of sexual battery but concluded the hospital was not vicariously liable due to insufficient closeness in the relationship.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings, holding that the correct legal test was applied and that the policy rationales for vicarious liability were properly considered.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant hospital for damages arising from sexual abuse he suffered in 1983 while attending an alternative school located on the hospital's grounds.

The plaintiff alleged that the director of the school, who was also his tutor, sexually battered him and that the hospital was vicariously liable and negligent.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the director did commit sexual battery against the plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the action, concluding that the hospital was not vicariously liable because the relationship between the hospital and the director was not sufficiently close, as the director operated the school independently.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to establish negligence on the part of the hospital.

The plaintiff, W.C., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, R.S., for sexual assault and battery.

The claim stemmed from a sexual relationship that began when the plaintiff was approximately 14 years old and the defendant, her father's cousin, was significantly older and in a position of trust.

The defendant had previously pleaded guilty to a criminal charge related to the relationship.

The court found that the defendant's admitted facts in the criminal proceedings, combined with his evidence on the motion, established liability for sexual battery.

The court determined that any "consent" at the outset was not legally effective due to the plaintiff's age, inexperience, and the defendant's exploitation of a position of trust.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that lack of resistance implied consent.

The motion for summary judgment on liability was granted.

The court also assessed damages, awarding $225,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages, plus $14,400 for future therapy, totaling $289,400.

Punitive damages were not awarded given the prior criminal sentence.

This was a motion for default judgment seeking damages for physical and sexual assault, battery, intimidation, and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The defendant, who was the plaintiff's first cousin, was noted in default after failing to file a defence.

The defendant had previously been criminally convicted for the sexual assault, which was deemed conclusive proof of the tort.

The plaintiff, who had a history of prior abuse, suffered significant psychological harm exacerbated by the defendant's actions and subsequent criminal trial.

The court awarded non-pecuniary damages, including for loss of competitive advantage, and punitive damages, along with pre- and post-judgment interest and costs.

The applicant, an Indigenous child welfare agency, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision amending the designations of child welfare agencies in the Thunder Bay area.

The decision expanded the jurisdiction of another Indigenous agency to provide services to its affiliated families residing in Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was a policy decision that met the requirements of procedural fairness and was reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

A case management teleconference was held regarding two related applications involving Indigenous child and family services.

Counsel for the moving party did not attend due to an administrative error by court staff.

The court noted ongoing discussions to convert one of the applications into an action and directed the parties to resolve the issue or bring a motion.

The court also addressed scheduling, noting that a return date before the end of 2020 would require proof of readiness and urgency, and encouraged the parties to agree on a schedule.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a teacher, alleged that her principal sexually harassed and assaulted her, and that the school board reprised against her.

The plaintiff's union had declined to pursue a grievance on her behalf due to the passage of time.

The court applied the Weber test and held that the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement.

The court found no 'remedial gap' that would grant it jurisdiction simply because the union chose not to pursue the grievance.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The defendant ABO Wireless Solutions Inc. brought a motion for leave to be represented by a non-lawyer, Khanh Kim Le Bui, who is its president, sole officer, director, and shareholder.

The defendant Bell Mobility Inc. opposed the motion, while the plaintiff took no position.

The court considered factors for granting leave under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including authorization, connection to the corporation, corporate structure, protection of stakeholders, representative's capability, and financial capacity.

The court found Ms. Bui reasonably capable and that granting leave was in the interests of justice, particularly for a closely held, non-operating corporation.

The motion was granted, with no costs awarded.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision that allowed an appeal from a master's severance order.

The plaintiffs, two sisters, alleged historic sexual abuse by their uncle.

The master had severed their claims, but the motion judge reversed this, finding the claims fit within a 'series of occurrences' under Rule 5.02(1)(a) and that joinder was appropriate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and no issue of such importance to warrant granting leave.