Paul Martin

This was a certification motion in a proposed national employment class action alleging that commission-only mortgage specialists were not paid vacation and holiday pay on their full variable compensation contrary to the Canada Labour Code and related contractual and equitable duties.

The court held that the pleaded claims for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of trust, and breach of duty of good faith were not plainly doomed to fail, and that there was some basis in fact for common liability issues and aggregate damages.

The court also held that the common issues predominated for preferable procedure purposes despite disputes about limitation periods and varying employment documents.

Certification was granted except for punitive damages, for which the record did not provide some basis in fact.

The discipline panel considered a registrant's admission that he falsely told a patient he had consulted an oral pathologist who agreed that a tongue lesion was non-urgent hyperkeratosis.

The panel held that the dishonesty, coupled with the lack of documentation and the resulting delay in cancer diagnosis, constituted professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Code and s. 2(59) of Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint submissions on penalty, the panel accepted a jointly proposed disposition centered on public protection, general deterrence, and the registrant's undertaking to resign permanently from practice in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.

The panel ordered a reprimand and costs of $7,500.

Ten X Toronto Inc. brought a motion to be added as a party to an appeal regarding the proposed revocation of a liquor licence held by 1938334 Ontario Inc. Ten X argued that it owned and occupied the premises covered by the licence and could not obtain its own liquor licence until the appellant's licence was revoked.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that Ten X had a significant interest in the appeal and that its substantive rights would be affected by the outcome.

The motion was granted on consent of the appellant and with no position taken by the respondent.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the panel accepted the member’s guilty plea and agreed statement of facts regarding cosmetic dental treatment in which crowns and a bridge were provided after discussions and documentation referring to veneers.

The panel found professional misconduct for over-preparing teeth, failing to obtain informed consent, charging excessive fees above recommended rates without explanation or consent, and providing inaccurate information to the regulator during the investigation.

The panel held that the patient had not consented to the actual treatment provided and that the member’s conduct caused significant clinical harm and raised serious integrity concerns.

A joint submission on penalty was accepted, resulting in an 18-month suspension, extensive remedial and practice restriction terms, and costs.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The allegations related to the member's membership in the College of Psychologists, for which he had already been reprimanded and suspended.

The member had retired from teaching, had not taught in 30 years, and signed an undertaking never to teach again or seek reinstatement.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the allegations in exchange for the undertaking and a notation on the public register served to protect the public interest.