Rachel Tatum Ching Yee Hung

The Registrant admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain infection prevention and control (IPAC) standards at her dental clinic and for failing to cooperate with practice monitoring and public health inspections.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension, terms and conditions on her certificate of registration including clinical supervision, and $12,000 in costs.

The Discipline Tribunal determined the penalty and costs following findings of professional misconduct against the registrant for failing to maintain proper records and failing to cooperate with the College and CBI Health.

The College sought a six-month suspension and $88,750.27 in costs.

The Tribunal ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and completion of remedial courses and mentorship.

Taking into account the registrant's financial circumstances, lack of prior disciplinary history, and the fact that she successfully defended against the most serious clinical allegations, the Tribunal ordered costs of $25,000 payable over five years.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful motion for default judgment brought by the defendant Joseph Gavin Briggs against the plaintiffs Joe Alessandro and Law Help Ltd. Briggs was awarded $45,285.00 in damages on his counterclaim.

The court, applying factors under Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, found the plaintiffs' obstructive conduct increased litigation costs and that Alessandro had abused Briggs' trust.

The court also affirmed that costs may be awarded even when counsel acts pro bono.

Briggs was awarded $15,000.00 in costs.

The defendant, Joseph Gavin Briggs, brought a motion for default judgment on his counterclaim against the plaintiffs, Joe Alessandro and Law Help Ltd. Briggs alleged misrepresentation, breach of duty, and unjust enrichment, stemming from Alessandro, an unlicensed individual, holding himself out as a paralegal and providing inadequate legal services, including entering unauthorized guilty pleas on Briggs' behalf.

Alessandro and Law Help Ltd. were noted in default on the counterclaim due to their failure to participate in the litigation process.

The court found Alessandro and Law Help Ltd. liable for intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and pierced the corporate veil to hold Alessandro personally liable.

The court awarded compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages, and ordered the production of legal files.

The plaintiffs, an Ontario corporation and its sole shareholder, initiated an action against two French residents for alleged negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the purchase of a French medical device manufacturer.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and that France was a clearly more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The court found that the alleged tort of misrepresentation occurred in France, where the misinformation was received and acted upon, not in Ontario where the plaintiffs felt the impact or signed some documents.

Consequently, the court determined there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario and granted the defendants' motion, staying the action.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to set aside an order striking out his defence to a counterclaim.

The Divisional Court found that the decision was interlocutory, not final, and therefore required leave to appeal.

The court declined to grant leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision, and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following motions regarding refusals on cross-examinations in a proposed class action.

The plaintiff's motion for refusals was largely dismissed, while the Solart defendants' cross-motion regarding the plaintiff's refusals was allowed.

The court considered various factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct." While the plaintiff's counsel's conduct was deemed unreasonable, it did not generally meet this high threshold, except in the case of Martin Yockell, where class counsel's conduct during cross-examination was found to be reprehensible, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

The court also addressed the recoverability of costs for pro bono counsel and costs thrown away.

This appeal concerned a motion judge's order regarding a class action.

The core issues were whether a discontinued cause of action and defendants could be added to an existing class action (the Martin action) and whether that action would then be governed by the old Class Proceedings Act, 1992, or the amended Act.

The motion judge had ordered the "recast" Martin action to proceed under the amended Act and denied leave to add a party (MicroPort Orthopedics Inc.) based on limitations.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in ordering the Martin action to be governed by the amended Act, as Section 39 of the amended Act clearly dictates that actions commenced before October 1, 2020, remain under the old Act.

The court also found an error in dismissing the motion to add MicroPort Orthopedics Inc. based on the Limitations Act, stating that limitation periods are typically individual issues in class actions.

The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part, clarifying that the Martin action continues under the old Act, and a re-filed Rowland action (including MicroPort Orthopedics Inc.) would proceed under the amended Act.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by various defendants during cross-examinations on affidavits filed for a certification motion.

The Solart defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions he refused during his cross-examination.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the questions posed to the defendants were irrelevant, unanswerable, or sought legal opinions.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, ordering the plaintiff to re-attend and answer questions related to the common issues, as they were relevant to testing the certification requirements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to deliver a new affidavit after cross-examinations for use on the defendants’ pending jurisdiction motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed evidence did not respond to matters raised on cross-examination, the plaintiffs provided no reasonable explanation for the delay in tendering the affidavit, and granting leave would cause undue prejudice and delay, contrary to the principles of efficient litigation.