Sally Gomery

The applicant, a postgraduate medical resident in Cardiac Surgery, sought judicial review of a university Senate Appeals Committee decision requiring her to enter a six-month remediation period before advancing to the next year of her program.

She argued the decision was unreasonable and that she was denied procedural fairness due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, an inability to cross-examine witnesses, and inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the academic decision was reasonable and that the requirements of procedural fairness were met, noting courts should only interfere in university academic affairs in cases of manifest unfairness.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Ottawa's Senate Appeals Committee dismissing him from the neurosurgery residency program for unprofessional and disruptive behaviour.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness, the decision was unreasonable, and his Charter right to freedom of expression was violated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Appeals Committee's de novo hearing cured any earlier procedural defects, the decision to dismiss was reasonable given the applicant's pattern of inflammatory emails and absenteeism, and the Charter did not apply to the university's internal academic disciplinary process.

Following approval of a class action settlement fund of $2.25 million for approximately 4,000 class members alleging illness from a resort norovirus outbreak, class counsel sought approval of an additional fee of $395,500 beyond an initial $600,000 fee.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the low take‑up rate—only 352 claims totalling approximately $333,000—made the total counsel fee disproportionate and unfair.

The court held that the value of a settlement for purposes of counsel fees may properly be measured by the total funds made available to the class rather than the amount actually claimed.

Considering the litigation risks undertaken, the benefits made available to class members, and policy reasons supporting incentives for class counsel, the court concluded the fee request was fair and reasonable.

The additional counsel fee was approved.

The applicant, a pediatric anesthesiologist, sought judicial review of a university committee's decision denying his promotion to Associate Professor.

The denial was based on a prior finding of sexual harassment, which had resulted in probation rather than the dismissal recommended by the Dean.

Because the promotion was denied, the applicant lost his academic medical license.

The Divisional Court quashed the committee's decision, finding a breach of procedural fairness.

The court held that the Dean's active participation at every level of the promotion process, after having previously investigated the harassment complaint and recommended the applicant's dismissal, raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class action sought leave to appeal a motions judge's decision dismissing a motion for enhanced notice to class members.

The settlement agreement, which capped the settlement fund at $2.25 million with the residue reverting to the defendants, had been approved by the court.

Due to a low take-up rate, the plaintiff sought to modify the notice provisions.

The motions judge held that the court could not modify a concluded and court-approved settlement agreement without the defendants' consent.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for certification of a class proceeding against a tour operator regarding a norovirus outbreak at resorts in the Dominican Republic.

The Divisional Court found that while the motions judge did not err in narrowing the class definition, he erred in principle in his analysis of the preferable procedure criterion by failing to assess it in the context of the narrowed class.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal and costs orders were set aside, and the matter was referred back to the motions judge for consideration of a revised litigation plan.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motions judge and dismissed the appeal, fixing costs at $10,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.

The appellant appealed an order staying her Ontario action.

On appeal, she raised a new issue regarding whether her claim against the respondents was barred by Quebec limitation periods, which would affect the juridical advantage analysis.

Because there was no evidentiary record on this issue, the Court of Appeal amended the lower court's order to provide for a conditional stay of the Ontario action pending the final determination of the limitation period question under Quebec law.