Neil Michael Abramson

The applicants, facing discipline proceedings before the Ontario College of Pharmacists, brought a motion seeking production of Third Party Records in advance of a pending judicial review application.

The Discipline Committee had previously dismissed their motion for disclosure at the first stage of the O'Connor and Mills test, finding the records were not likely relevant.

The applicants argued the records were necessary for the court to properly analyze the production issue on judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the issue on judicial review is whether the Tribunal erred in law at the first stage of the analysis, and examining the records beforehand would usurp the Tribunal's function.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed two decisions of its Discipline Committee acquitting a veterinarian of various allegations of professional misconduct, including animal abuse, misdiagnosis, and inappropriate comments.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee's reasons were woefully inadequate, failed to address material evidence, contained inconsistent findings, and were ultimately unreasonable.

The matters were remitted to a differently constituted panel for new hearings.

The appellants brought a motion to a full panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge.

The single judge had quashed their appeal from an interlocutory order of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists refusing production of third party records, and refused to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review.

The full panel upheld the quashing of the appeal, agreeing it was an interlocutory order.

However, the panel set aside the refusal to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, finding that the appellants raised an arguable point regarding procedural fairness and the need for third party records to effectively cross-examine key witnesses.

The moving party (the College) brought a motion to quash an appeal by the responding parties (the members) from an interlocutory order of the Discipline Committee.

The Discipline Committee had dismissed the members' motion for the production of additional third-party records.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the statutory right of appeal only applies to final decisions, not interlocutory ones.

The court also declined the members' request to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, noting that such an application would be premature and that the administrative process should be permitted to unfold.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment and to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants engaged in a conspiracy and 'closure campaign' against their sleep clinics.

The defendants argued the claims were barred by statutory immunity under the Independent Health Facilities Act and constituted an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the pleadings were sufficient and the claims were not clearly barred by immunity.

The appellants (majority directors) appealed a costs order of $213,380.64 made against them personally following an application by the respondents (minority directors).

The Court of Appeal upheld the quantum of costs but found the application judge erred in ordering costs against the directors personally without a finding of mala fides.

The court noted the corporation's constitution provided for indemnification of directors acting in the execution of their duties.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to make the corporation responsible for the costs.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, the court determined the costs to be awarded to the respondents.

The respondents sought $36,915 in fees, which the court found to be substantially beyond what might reasonably be anticipated.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought an application regarding an ongoing tribunal hearing involving the Sleep Disorders Centres.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that no significant harm or breach of natural justice would occur by refusing to decide the issue, especially since the report in question had already been disclosed.

The Court concluded that all related issues should be determined by the tribunal based on a full and complete record.

The appellants appealed a decision fixing the membership of three charitable corporations and ordering a meeting to elect new directors.

The Court of Appeal found that no proper procedure was taken to change the members in accordance with the Corporations Act, and the proper directors and members remained the original applicants for the letters patent.

The appeal was allowed, and the court ordered meetings of the original members to be held within 30 days.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the responding party's cross-appeal, arguing that the responding party was required to obtain leave to cross-appeal because the cross-appeal raised different issues than the moving party's appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that under Rule 61.07(1.1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a respondent may serve a notice of cross-appeal without obtaining leave if the appellant has already been granted leave to appeal, regardless of whether the cross-appeal relates to different issues.

The appellant was largely successful in having his most serious professional misconduct convictions set aside on appeal, but unsuccessful on his main ground of reasonable apprehension of bias, which consumed 90% of the appeal's time.

The appellant sought costs of $132,868.19.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the Divisional Court awarded the appellant reduced costs fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity scale to reflect the divided success.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders.

He argued that a committee member's prior involvement with a Quality Assurance Committee created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the committee erred in refusing to qualify his proposed expert witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the bias claim but found the committee erred in refusing to qualify the expert witness.

The findings of misconduct that depended on expert testimony were quashed, and the penalty and costs were set aside and remitted to a newly constituted panel.

A physician sought production of confidential reference letters that allegedly blocked his appointment to active hospital staff privileges, arguing he needed them to assess potential defamation or economic tort claims and to clear his professional reputation.

The court held that a free-standing equitable action for discovery, as the modern equivalent of a bill of discovery, can coexist with the Rules of Civil Procedure and may be brought by application where no material facts are in dispute.

However, applying the Wigmore criteria, the court found the letters privileged because confidentiality was essential to candid peer review in hospital staff appointments and the public interest in preserving that process outweighed the benefit of disclosure.

The availability of a statutory route under the Public Hospitals Act to challenge the denial of privileges further weakened the case for overriding privilege.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.