Natasha S. Danson

The appellant, Behrouz Salehi, brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a 2016 Court of Appeal decision that had dismissed his appeal.

The motion was based on newly discovered facts related to his negligence claim against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario concerning his licensing application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a motion where the underlying order was affirmed on appeal; such motions must be brought before the Superior Court.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Birgit Johnston and her business, Cutting Edge K9 Oral Hygiene, from practicing veterinary medicine and holding themselves out as such, specifically concerning anesthesia-free dog teeth cleaning.

The respondents also moved for an adjournment and transfer of the main application.

The court dismissed the College's motion for an interlocutory injunction, finding that while there was a serious issue regarding the practice of dentistry, the College failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The main application was adjourned pending the respondents' motion to transfer.

Following the dismissal of a civil action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the defendant’s bill of costs, the conduct of the plaintiff during the litigation, and the principles governing costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff challenged the fairness of the earlier decision and disputed the hours billed by defence counsel.

The court held that costs generally follow the event and that the rates and hours claimed were largely reasonable.

Costs of the action, including the summary judgment motion, were fixed at an all-inclusive amount of $30,000.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action seeking damages arising from the alleged mishandling of his application for a professional engineering licence by the provincial regulator.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The court held that the regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to an individual applicant in the circumstances, given the statutory framework and the public‑interest mandate of the regulatory body.

The governing statute also contained a good‑faith immunity provision indicating legislative intent not to impose such liability.

In any event, the record disclosed no evidence of bad faith in the processing of the licensing application.