Neil Michael Abramson

The appellant, Neighbour’s Drug Mart Ltd., appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of its judicial review application.

The original decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs terminated Neighbour’s Health Network System Agreement, revoked its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, and suspended its entitlement to payment due to false or unsubstantiated claims.

Neighbour’s argued the Divisional Court erred by misapprehending the record, imposing an unsupported sanction, and creating absolute liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the Divisional Court's application of the reasonableness standard or its conclusions regarding the owner's responsibility and the regulatory scheme's honour system.

The court also rejected the argument that the Executive Officer's consent to a change of control precluded subsequent termination, emphasizing the new owner's assumption of all liabilities.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully resisting an anti-SLAPP motion brought by two defendants and partially succeeding on a motion to strike pleadings.

The court, interpreting section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, ruled that a responding party who successfully resists an anti-SLAPP motion is generally not entitled to costs unless exceptional circumstances warrant it.

Despite the plaintiff incurring significant legal expenses and the judge's view that the motion was "on the wrong side of the boundary" of abusive use, the court found no basis to deviate from the statutory rule, compelling it to deny costs.

However, a separate settlement for $4,000 was reached with another defendant (CUHMA) for their appearance.

The defendants Kenneth LeDez and Ron Linden brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), or alternatively, to strike certain pleadings under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff, a hyperbaric medicine specialist, sued after LeDez accused her of unethical conduct and orchestrated her removal from a professional association, stemming from her "off-label" use of hyperbaric procedures.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendants lacked a valid defense, and that the public interest in allowing the suit to continue outweighed protecting the defendants' expressions, which were found to exceed privileged occasions and potentially be malicious.

The alternative motion to strike pleadings was granted in part, striking claims for unlawful interference with economic relations, conspiracy, bad faith, and breach of fiduciary duty, but allowing the corporate oppression remedy claim to stand as it was based on specific corporate acts rather than expressions.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 26, 2017 and March 6, 2018.

The appellants were unsuccessful in their appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants appealed a contempt sentencing order from the Superior Court.

The respondent had brought an action claiming monies advanced to the appellants were not properly disbursed and that the appellants lacked a proper accounting system.

An interim order required the appellants to account for monies received, disclose documents to an appointed accounting firm, and pay unpaid accounts.

The appellants were found in contempt for failing to comply with the accounting and disclosure requirements.

On appeal, the appellants did not contest the contempt finding but challenged the sentencing as based on an erroneous finding that they had not purged their contempt and as disproportionate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in refusing to admit fresh evidence regarding purge of contempt, and that the sentence was disproportionate.

A pharmacist challenged the Ontario College of Pharmacists' jurisdiction to prosecute discipline charges after the College failed to comply with mandatory statutory timelines for processing a written complaint under section 25 of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Instead, the College accepted the complainant's withdrawal and proceeded with a registrar-initiated investigation under section 75.

The Divisional Court quashed the charges, finding the College lost jurisdiction through non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that written complaints may be withdrawn when the College agrees and the matter proceeds through another statutory process with full procedural safeguards.

The court balanced the public interest in regulating the profession against the accused member's fair hearing rights, finding no procedural unfairness or prejudice to the respondent.