3 total
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 31, 2024.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.
The court granted class members leave to sue a settlement administrator for allegedly providing misleading advice about compensation options while knowing the fund was insolvent.
The applicants, claimants under a Hepatitis C class action settlement, sought leave to sue the settlement administrator, Crawford & Company (Canada) Inc., for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.
They alleged mismanagement of the Past Economic Loss and Dependents Fund (PELD Fund) and misleading advice regarding compensation options, which resulted in them receiving only a pro-rata share of their approved compensation.
The court granted leave, applying the "reasonable possibility of success" test.
It found that the proposed claims, if proven, demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success for all three causes of action.
The court distinguished the case from prior decisions denying leave, emphasizing that the allegations pertained to the administrator's conduct in providing advice while aware of fund insolvency, rather than merely challenging compensation calculations.
Arguments regarding release and limitation periods were dismissed as premature at this stage.
Judicial review dismissed; Board reasonably admitted opinion evidence from OHIP medical advisor in billing dispute.
The applicant, an orthopedic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of certain billing claims.
The applicant argued the Board erred by admitting opinion evidence from an OHIP medical advisor who was not an independent expert.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably exercised its broad statutory discretion to admit the evidence.
The court noted the witness, while not a traditional independent expert or a 'participant expert' under the civil rules, possessed relevant expertise as an employee of a party and her evidence was largely factual and explanatory.
