Robert A. Centa

The applicant, a medical student, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Academic Appeals Committee upholding findings of professionalism lapses.

The applicant argued that the initial process before the Board of Examiners was procedurally unfair due to insufficient notice and undisclosed allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the initial process was flawed, the subsequent appeals before the Faculty of Medicine Appeals Committee and the Academic Appeals Committee were conducted as de novo hearings that cured any procedural defects.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following an appeal that proceeded in writing.

The court awarded costs of $6,500, including disbursements and taxes, to the respondent, The University of Toronto.

The court noted that the appeal issues were not complex and largely replicated submissions made at first instance.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university academic appeal committee decision.

In support of his application, he filed an affidavit containing evidence of events that occurred after the original board decision.

The university brought a motion to strike those portions of the affidavit.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, applying the Keeprite principle that judicial review is based on the record before the decision-maker, and finding that the applicant had previously consented to excluding this evidence during the internal appeal processes.

Following an order striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim, the successful defendant sought costs of $500.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs request, citing an inability to pay and disagreeing with the underlying decision.

The court found the defendant's request for a token costs award of $500 to be very reasonable, noting that a lack of resources does not provide a license to bring unsuccessful proceedings without consequence.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant university brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged wrongful expulsion, assault, and discrimination occurring in and around 2000.

The court dismissed the action, finding it was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Furthermore, the court noted it lacked jurisdiction over academic disputes and human rights claims, which must be directed to the university's internal processes and the Human Rights Tribunal, respectively.

The appellant sought to overturn the denial of an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing the enforcement of a trespass notice issued by the respondent university.

The notice was impeding the appellant's studies and jeopardizing his student visa status, pending a Human Rights Tribunal proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's assessment of evidence or misapplication of the interlocutory injunction test.

The court upheld the finding that the balance of convenience favored the university, given the serious threats perceived and the inadequacy of the medical information provided by the appellant.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, failed her Assessment Verification Period in the university's emergency medicine residency program.

She brought a motion for an interim injunction to prevent the university from reporting her failure to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pending her internal appeal and judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no irreparable harm and concluding that the balance of convenience favoured the university, which has a statutory obligation to report such outcomes to the College.

The plaintiffs moved to remove the defendant's designated representative for examination for discovery, Peter Hill, due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

Hill had a lucrative consulting contract with one of the incumbent telecommunications providers whose conduct was central to the action, and his contract required him to prefer his client's interests.

The court found that Hill's contractual obligations and his evasive testimony during discovery demonstrated a preference for the incumbent's interests over his duties as a witness, rendering him a demonstrably unsatisfactory representative.

The motion was granted, and Hill was ordered to be replaced by Kelly Gillis or another suitable witness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university discipline board decision that upheld a tribunal's finding of academic dishonesty regarding his doctoral thesis.

The tribunal had denied the applicant's request for an adjournment and proceeded with the hearing and penalty phase in his absence, ultimately recommending his degree be cancelled and he be expelled.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal's decisions to deny the adjournment and proceed immediately to penalty were procedurally fair and reasonable given the extensive history of delay, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence, and the prior notice provided to the applicant.

The applicant, a university student, sought judicial review of an academic appeals committee decision refusing to reweight his grade for a missed midterm exam.

The applicant argued that the committee's decision was unreasonable, that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not permitted to make oral submissions in addition to his legal representative.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no apprehension of bias, no breach of procedural fairness, and that the committee's decision was reasonable.

The Ombudsman of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that held neither the Election Compliance Audit Committee nor the Property Standards Committee of the City of Hamilton constituted "local boards" within the meaning of section 14.1 of the Ombudsman Act.

The Ombudsman sought to investigate whether these committees complied with the public meeting requirement under section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle to conclude that the general language in the definition of "local board" does not extend to investigative/adjudicative bodies that do not carry on the day-to-day operations of the municipality.

Consequently, the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to investigate these committees' compliance with open meeting requirements.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellant's action.

The respondents were entirely successful on appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

West Face Capital Inc. sought $250,000 in costs while Brandon Moyse sought $149,905.18.

The appellant argued for reduced costs amounts.

The Court of Appeal awarded West Face $200,000 and Moyse $100,000, both inclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the respondents' complete success, the nature of the appeal involving a large record and detailed factual re-litigation, and costs thrown away due to an unnecessary adjournment.

Appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellant's action for misuse of confidential information and spoliation.

The appellant alleged that the respondent West Face Capital Inc. improperly obtained and used confidential information about the appellant's bid to acquire WIND Mobile Inc., allegedly obtained from a former employee who moved to West Face.

The trial judge dismissed all claims, finding that the appellant failed to prove that confidential information was provided to West Face or that any such information was used in West Face's successful competing bid.

The trial judge also found that the appellant's choice to terminate negotiations due to a break fee demand, rather than West Face's competing bid, caused the failure of the appellant's acquisition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment and dismissed the appeal, as well as the application for leave to appeal the costs orders.

The applicant, a medical school graduate, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Examiners requiring him to undergo remediation for a lapse in professionalism.

The applicant had initiated an internal appeal but abandoned it, choosing instead to complete the remediation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust his internal appeal remedies and demonstrated no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the administrative process.

The applicant municipality brought an application for a declaration that the respondent Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to investigate its Election Compliance Audit Committee and Property Standards Committee for alleged violations of open meeting requirements.

The Divisional Court held that neither committee falls within the definition of a 'local board' under the Municipal Act, as they are independent adjudicative bodies whose purposes are inconsistent with a municipality's power to dissolve a local board.

The Court granted a declaration that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate these committees, but declined to grant a broader declaration regarding all quasi-judicial tribunals or to quash the Ombudsman's non-binding report.

The applicant sought judicial review of the New Democratic Party's internal decision to reject his candidacy for the party's leadership.

The court first determined that it had jurisdiction to review the decision, finding that the selection of a major political party's leader has a sufficiently broad public impact to bring it within the realm of public law.

However, applying a reasonableness standard, the court upheld the National Director's decision to reject the applicant, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that the party was entitled to broad discretion in vetting its leadership candidates.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the Academic Appeals Committee upholding his dismissal from the anesthesia residency program.

He argued that deviations from his remediation plan, including timeline errors and lack of baseline testing, made the process manifestly unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Appeals Committee's conclusion that the deviations were not significant enough to invalidate the remediation process was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The moving parties, Antonio Ferrara (in trust) and Astoria Homes Inc., sought to strike a third-party claim brought by the Marcheses against Antonio Ferrara in his personal capacity.

The third-party claim was issued without consent or leave of the court, contrary to Rule 29.02.

The court found that while an irregularity occurred, leave would have been granted had it been sought, as no prejudice to the plaintiffs was demonstrated.

Furthermore, the irregularity was cured by the moving parties taking fresh steps in the litigation after becoming aware of the third-party claim.

The application to strike was dismissed.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the main action.

West Face Capital Inc. was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $1,239,965 due to the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of soliciting and misusing confidential information, which impugned West Face's integrity and honesty.

Brandon Moyse was awarded partial indemnity costs of $339,500.18, despite also facing integrity-damaging allegations, because he had destroyed evidence at the outset of the litigation, albeit without intent to destroy relevant evidence.

The court found the plaintiff's allegations against West Face and Moyse to be serious and unsubstantiated, justifying higher costs for West Face, while Moyse's conduct warranted a reduction to partial indemnity.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Vaughan Council to suspend his pay for 90 days based on a report by the Integrity Commissioner.

The Commissioner found the applicant had improperly interfered with municipal tendering processes and attempted to obstruct her investigation.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Commissioner refused to disclose the names and statements of 32 witnesses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, applying the Baker factors to find that the Commissioner properly balanced the applicant's right to know the case against him with the need to protect cooperating staff from reprisals.

The court also rejected arguments regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and the Commissioner's jurisdiction.