Natasha S. Danson

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.

The respondent Association brought a motion to quash the applicant's application for judicial review of a Registration Committee decision denying his registration as a professional geoscientist.

The court granted the motion, finding the application manifestly premature because the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory appeal to the Council of the Association, which he had already commenced but adjourned.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the Association.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include a claim for reprisal, additional remedies, and an allegation that the respondent failed to properly investigate her complaint.

The respondent consented to the reprisal and remedies amendments but opposed the failure to investigate allegation.

The Tribunal allowed all amendments, finding that the failure to investigate allegation relied on facts already pleaded, would not cause substantial delay, and would not prejudice the respondent.

The moving parties, officers and directors of the Gandi Group, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order in CCAA proceedings.

The motion judge had limited their indemnity claims to specific corporate entities, subordinated one claim to a major creditor, and characterized the indemnity claims as 'equity claims' under the CCAA, thereby subordinating them to unsecured creditors.

The Court of Appeal applied the Stelco test and denied leave to appeal, finding the issues were either factual, not of significance to the practice, or lacked prima facie merit.