4 total
Appeal from HPARB decision denying hospital privileges dismissed due to physician's hostile conduct.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) denying him hospital privileges.
The Divisional Court found that HPARB reasonably addressed alleged procedural irregularities and correctly applied the statutory test under the Public Hospitals Act.
The court upheld HPARB's finding that the appellant's hostile conduct towards other health professionals, which continued on social media, made his continued involvement at the hospital untenable.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Interlocutory injunction to silence physician's social media commentary pending appeal of medical privileges decision denied.
The moving party hospital authority brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the responding party physician from publicly commenting on social media about matters at issue in his pending appeal regarding medical privileges, and to require him to remove past posts.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to its ability to participate in the appeal process under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.
The court also held that the balance of convenience did not favour the broad injunction sought, as it would seriously curtail the responding party's freedom of expression.
Court reduced claimed fees but fixed substantial indemnity costs against the defaulting mortgagor.
In a mortgage enforcement proceeding resolved by summary judgment, the court determined the quantum of costs after prior entitlement to substantial indemnity costs had already been established by contract.
The court applied Rule 57 reasonableness principles, considered proportionality against the judgment amount, and weighed litigation conduct including repeated settlement opportunities and delay-related behaviour.
Although the court accepted that the matter was not unusually sophisticated and reduced the effective hourly allowance, it found most work and disbursements reasonable and necessary.
The court rejected objections that Notice of Sale costs required a separate assessment process under the Mortgage Act and fixed total costs in a reduced but substantial amount payable by the responding party.
Summary judgment granted enforcing mortgage and dismissing borrower’s counterclaim.
The mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a residential mortgage following the mortgagor’s default and sought payment of the outstanding balance, possession of the property, and dismissal of a counterclaim.
The borrower argued that the lender failed to honour a three‑month payment holdback allegedly promised during refinancing and asserted defences including misrepresentation, non est factum, and equitable set‑off.
The court found that the mortgage commitment permitted changes to the holdback if the borrower’s financial representations were inaccurate and concluded that insufficient funds existed to fund the holdback because of undisclosed arrears and higher debts.
The record demonstrated the borrower knew the holdback was unavailable and had multiple opportunities to cure the default but failed to do so.
The court held there was no genuine issue requiring trial under Rule 20 and dismissed the counterclaim.
