Peter J. Osborne

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board regarding whether her Master's degree program was "primarily psychological in nature." The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board conducted a detailed and nuanced examination of the material and that its decision was not demonstrably unreasonable.

The Court noted it was bound to afford deference to the Board's expertise.

No costs were ordered.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action following the sudden death of Emilio Spirito at Trillium Health Centre.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' negligence, specifically the failure to insert a nasogastric tube, caused the deceased to aspirate fluids and die.

The court found that the defendant doctors and nurses met the standard of care in their treatment and monitoring of the deceased.

Furthermore, the court accepted expert pathology evidence that the deceased died from bilateral lobar pneumonia acquired from air-borne bacteria, meaning there was no causal connection between the alleged negligence and the death.

The action was dismissed.

The moving parties (class action plaintiffs) brought a motion to quash appeals filed by the respondent objectors.

The court found that the appellants did not have a right of appeal under s. 30(3) of the Class Proceedings Act because they were not parties to the class proceeding.

Furthermore, they did not meet the requirements of s. 30(5) as they had not obtained leave to act as a representative party for an appeal from a judgment on common issues or an aggregate assessment.

The appeals were quashed and the motion to act as representative plaintiff was dismissed.

Invesco sought leave to appeal orders sanctioning a Plan of Compromise and Reorganization under the CCAA and approving a settlement that released Ernst & Young LLP from claims arising from its auditing of Sino-Forest Corporation.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals failed to meet the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings.

The appeal of the Sanction Order was moot, and the issues regarding the third-party release in the Settlement Order were governed by the court's prior decision in ATB Financial.

The appellant law firm sought leave to appeal a cost order made against it personally under Rule 57.07.

The firm had been removed as counsel for the plaintiff due to a conflict of interest, as another lawyer in the firm was acting for the defendant hospital.

The motion judge found the firm failed to fully disclose the conflict to the plaintiff and maintained an untenable position, causing unnecessary costs.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The appellants, auditors and underwriters of Sino-Forest Corporation, appealed an order declaring that their claims for contribution and indemnity against Sino-Forest were 'equity claims' under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The claims arose from proposed shareholder class actions alleging misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'equity claim' in s. 2(1) of the CCAA focuses on the nature of the claim rather than the identity of the claimant.

The court found that the appellants' claims for contribution and indemnity were clearly connected to the shareholders' equity claims and thus fell within the expansive statutory definition.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the dismissal of its claim against the respondent bank.

The appellant's property manager had improperly transferred funds from the appellant's trust account at the bank, causing a loss of over $370,000.

At trial, the appellant succeeded against the property manager but its claim against the bank was dismissed.

On appeal, the appellant sought damages in negligence against the bank.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not advanced negligence as a distinct claim at trial, likely for tactical reasons to avoid a contributory negligence defence.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against the directors, officers, and advisors of a Delaware-incorporated company for alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claim for punitive damages, strike the claim against a former director for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and stay the action against the foreign financial advisors on jurisdictional grounds.

The court granted all motions, striking the punitive damages claim as inconsistent with the statutory scheme, striking the claim against the former director without leave to amend, and permanently staying the action against the foreign advisors as the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

A massage therapist was accused of sexual intercourse with a patient.

The College of Massage Therapists investigated the complaint but failed to give the therapist notice or an opportunity to respond, breaching the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The College referred the matter for a full investigation.

The therapist sought judicial review, and the Divisional Court quashed the College's decisions, finding the breach of procedural fairness was a true question of jurisdiction rendering the proceedings a nullity.

The College appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a breach of procedural fairness is not a true question of jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the therapist had an adequate alternative remedy through a review by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

Absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present, the court should not intervene before the administrative process is completed.

In CCAA proceedings, the applicant sought an order declaring that shareholder class action claims alleging losses from the purchase or sale of its securities constituted “equity claims” under s. 2 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The applicant also sought a determination that indemnity and contribution claims advanced by auditors and underwriters in relation to those shareholder actions were likewise equity claims.

The court held that shareholder claims alleging losses from trading in the company’s securities fall squarely within the statutory definition of equity claims and are subordinated to creditor claims.

Indemnification and contribution claims arising from those shareholder actions were also characterized as equity claims because their nature derives from the underlying shareholder claims.

However, the court left open the possibility that claims for defence costs might not necessarily be equity claims depending on the outcome of the underlying litigation.

The appellant appealed a judgment interpreting an agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plain reading of the agreement required an 'all cash offer'.

The appellant's September 10, 2006 proposal, although containing a cash component exceeding the amount set out in the agreement, was not an 'all cash offer' and therefore did not comply with the agreement.

Assuming the CCAA applied, the court granted leave and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant obstetrician prescribed the fertility drug Clomid to the respondent mother, who subsequently gave birth prematurely to twin girls with severe disabilities.

The jury found the appellant negligent for failing to properly inform the mother of the risks of twinning and premature birth associated with Clomid, and that she would not have taken the drug if properly informed.

The trial judge held that the twins had a valid cause of action against the appellant and that the parents could recover future care costs for the twins beyond the age of 18.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the jury's verdict on causation and the parents' entitlement to future care costs.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the twins' claims, holding that the appellant owed no duty of care to the unborn children when prescribing a fertility drug to the mother, as his duty was solely to provide the mother with sufficient information to make an informed choice.

The moving parties, Global Payments Direct Inc. and Global Payments Canada Inc., sought to expedite and consolidate the hearing of their motion for leave to appeal and the appeal itself from an order in Air Canada's CCAA proceedings.

The moving parties sought security for their exposure to credit card chargebacks.

The Court of Appeal held that while it had jurisdiction to consolidate the proceedings under Rule 2.03, such an order is exceptional.

The court expedited the leave motion and potential appeal but declined to consolidate them, finding the moving parties would not suffer substantial prejudice if the usual practice of separate hearings was followed.

The appellant, a jewellery consultant, entered into consignment agreements with a retailer, requiring proceeds to be held in a separate trust account.

The retailer opened an account with the respondent bank, but the bank incorporated it into a consolidated off-set balance system, using the funds to offset the retailer's debts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the funds were impressed with a trust and the bank had constructive knowledge of the trust because it failed to follow its own account agreement requiring two signatures before transferring funds.