Rebecca Jones

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for providing a falsified Police Clearance Certificate to her employer.

The certificate had been altered to conceal a prior criminal conviction for fraud.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for one month, and conditions were imposed requiring her to meet with a nursing expert and notify future employers of the decision.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent nurse for inappropriate behaviour, boundary crossings, and misappropriation of narcotics.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the respondent dressed in lingerie and behaved inappropriately with a client, engaged in boundary crossings by visiting a discharged client and accepting gifts, and misappropriated narcotics from two clients' homes.

The Committee ordered a four-month suspension, a reprimand, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations on the respondent's certificate of registration, including a restriction from practicing independently in the community for 12 months.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the respondent nurse for incidents involving a mental health client in seclusion.

The respondent was alleged to have verbally abused the client, denied him access to a washroom or urinal, forced him to clean up his own urine, and falsified the patient record to state that staff had cleaned it.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations proven on a balance of probabilities, relying on witness testimony, video surveillance, and expert evidence.

The respondent's certificate of registration was suspended for four months, and she was ordered to complete remedial education and notify future employers of the decision.

The plaintiffs were successful in a personal injury action and were awarded damages and costs.

The trial judge also awarded a risk premium of $192,600 to the plaintiffs' counsel, payable by the defendants, because counsel had carried the litigation for four years without remuneration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the risk premium.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the risk premium, holding that the risk of non-payment to a plaintiff's lawyer is not a relevant factor under Rule 57.01(1) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure when fixing costs payable by an unsuccessful defendant.

The appellant was taken to the hospital by police under a Form 2 of the Mental Health Act and detained for a psychiatric assessment by the attending physician under a Form 1.

She was assessed and released within four and one-half hours.

The appellant sued the physician and hospital for false imprisonment and Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the action, finding that the detention complied with the Mental Health Act and that the provision of written notice of the right to counsel satisfied the appellant's Charter rights in this context.

The applicant, operator of the Highway 407 toll road, sought an order of mandamus compelling the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to refuse to validate or issue vehicle permits for individuals who failed to pay tolls.

The Registrar had refused to act, arguing that he had a duty to ensure the applicant complied with the statutory scheme and that individuals were not wrongly denied plate renewals.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Highway 407 Act imposes a mandatory duty on the Registrar to deny permits upon receiving notice of non-payment.

The court held that the Registrar has no discretion or oversight role to look behind the notices or compliance certificates, and declined to exercise its residual discretion to refuse mandamus.

The appellant distributor sued the respondent manufacturer for wrongful termination of an exclusive distributorship agreement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the distributor breached an implied duty of good faith by failing to disclose a change in its ownership, which gave the manufacturer 'just cause' to terminate without notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that employment law concepts like 'just cause' should not be imported into commercial distributorship agreements.

Instead, ordinary contract principles apply, and a contract can only be terminated without notice if the breach amounts to a fundamental breach.

The Court found the distributor's failure to disclose the sale did not substantially deprive the manufacturer of the whole benefit of the contract, and thus did not constitute a fundamental breach.

The applicant brought a motion regarding refusals and undertakings arising from examinations in a judicial review application concerning the respondent's authority to enforce notice of licence cancellation.

The court reviewed transcripts and correspondence, ruling on obvious relevancy issues and leaving the remainder to the Divisional Court panel to determine, noting the competing views on the scope of the record.

The appellant company appealed an order declaring it in breach of a redemption obligation and entitling the respondent to immediate redemption of his preference shares for $1,600,000.

The appellant had refused to pay quarterly dividends to the respondent despite having the funds, suspecting the respondent of breaching non-compete obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's finding that the failure to pay dividends constituted a default under the Shareholders' Agreement, triggering the respondent's unconditional right to redeem his shares.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the default provision only applied when the company lacked funds.