Paula Trattner

The parties requested a revision to the procedural timelines contained in the Amending Procedural Order to facilitate a mediation scheduled for July 7, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request on consent and issued a revised Procedural Order governing the conduct of the proceeding leading up to the hearing commencing on November 2, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation for injurious affection and business losses under the Expropriations Act arising from a road reconstruction project.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, scheduling a four-day video hearing to commence on March 1, 2027, and setting out the timetable for pre-hearing steps including discoveries, mediation, and exchange of expert reports.

The parties proposed amendments to a Procedural Order issued by the Ontario Land Tribunal on March 12, 2026, regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal considered the requested amendments and issued a revised Procedural Order governing the future conduct of the proceeding, including setting a seven-day video hearing to commence on September 13, 2027.

The parties submitted a proposed procedural order on consent to govern the future conduct of a hearing to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued the procedural order, setting out the timetable for discoveries, exchange of expert reports, mediation, and the final hearing.

The parties requested an amendment to the procedural order governing the schedule for a compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request on consent and issued an amended procedural order setting out the timetable for pleadings, discoveries, mediation, and the hearing.

The parties requested on consent to amend the hearing date and procedural timelines for an expropriation compensation claim.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, rescheduling the seven-day hearing to commence on November 2, 2026, and issued an updated Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing steps.

The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion to compel the Claimants to answer questions refused and produce documents requested during an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The requested documents included corporate tax returns, financial statements, and occupancy records.

The Tribunal found the requested information relevant to the damages claims and ordered the Claimants to provide the answers and documentation, noting that confidentiality is not a proper basis to refuse production of relevant documents.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following a telephone conference call.

The order establishes the procedural steps and timetable leading up to a five-day hearing scheduled for June 2026 to determine the claimant's compensation for disturbance damages arising from the expropriation of its land by the City of Hamilton.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of his hospital privileges at Windsor Regional Hospital.

The hospital revoked his privileges due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to comply with a new 'Model of Care' for renal patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons were sufficient and that there was ample evidence of the appellant's disruptive conduct, which undermined the hospital's policies and staff, justifying the revocation of his privileges.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) denying him hospital privileges.

The Divisional Court found that HPARB reasonably addressed alleged procedural irregularities and correctly applied the statutory test under the Public Hospitals Act.

The court upheld HPARB's finding that the appellant's hostile conduct towards other health professionals, which continued on social media, made his continued involvement at the hospital untenable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) refusing to remove the respondent hospital's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The hospital moved to quash the judicial review application as premature, while the applicant moved to convert the application into an appeal and stay the HPARB proceedings.

The Divisional Court quashed the judicial review application, finding no exceptional circumstances justified interfering with the ongoing administrative process.

The court also refused to convert the application to an appeal, as the HPARB decision was interlocutory, and dismissed the motion for a stay.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the action pending the outcome of a hospital board hearing, both parties sought costs.

The defendants sought $18,358.12, while the plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs based on prior offers to settle.

The court found the defendants' bill of costs to be excessive given the relative simplicity of the issues and fixed costs at $7,500 payable to the defendants.

The moving party hospital authority brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the responding party physician from publicly commenting on social media about matters at issue in his pending appeal regarding medical privileges, and to require him to remove past posts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to its ability to participate in the appeal process under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also held that the balance of convenience did not favour the broad injunction sought, as it would seriously curtail the responding party's freedom of expression.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, marital status, age, and reprisal regarding medical treatment received at the respondent hospital.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing, arguing the allegations amounted to medical malpractice rather than Code violations.

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The application was permitted to proceed to the next stage of the hearing process.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her adult son, alleging discrimination in the provision of health services by the respondent hospitals and physicians.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and if the allegations were timely.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish the medical care provided to her son in May 2012 was influenced by discrimination or reprisal.

The Tribunal also found that the earlier allegations were filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and there was no good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant doctor sued the respondent hospital, producing emails during the litigation that the hospital suspected were fabricated.

After the action settled, the doctor applied for reappointment to the hospital's medical staff.

The hospital sought to use an affidavit obtained during the litigation, which questioned the emails' authenticity, at a Medical Advisory Committee meeting.

The application judge granted relief from the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(8) to permit this use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor's appeal, finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion, as the parties were the same and the interest of justice in denouncing potentially fabricated evidence outweighed any non-existent prejudice to the appellant.

The appellant physician moved for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) that confirmed the revocation of his hospital privileges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant did not maintain a firm intention to appeal within the prescribed time limit, failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the appeal lacked merit.

Furthermore, granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the respondent hospital, which had already moved forward with staffing and budgeting decisions.

The Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) and Dr. Khan both sought costs following the dismissal of Dr. Khan's motion to stay a hearing of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Hospital regarding the termination of his hospital privileges.

The court found that the MAC was largely successful on the motion, as the hearing was allowed to proceed with only a delay in the release of the decision.

The court awarded costs to the MAC in the amount of $9,500 on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the motion was not legally or factually complex.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a hospital board's motion decision regarding the termination of his hospital privileges due to disruptive conduct.

The applicant argued that the Medical Advisory Committee lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its recommendation, that a board member's comments breached the Public Hospitals Act, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant must first exhaust his statutory remedies, including an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, before seeking judicial review.

The applicant physician brought a motion to stay a hearing before the hospital's Board of Directors regarding the termination of his hospital privileges, pending an application for judicial review.

The applicant alleged lack of notice and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found the applicant's case weak on the merits and that he would not suffer irreparable harm if the hearing proceeded.

The balance of convenience favoured continuing the hearing.

The motion for a stay was granted only to the extent that the Board was ordered not to disclose its decision until after the disposition of the judicial review application.