Salvatore Romualdo Guerriero

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The appellant argued for no costs or a maximum of $5,000, claiming the appeal raised an issue of public importance.

The Divisional Court rejected the no-costs argument, noting the appellant re-litigated factual issues, attacked the integrity of the discipline process, and constantly evolved his grounds of appeal, which increased the respondent's costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant, a licensed professional engineer, appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct for providing engineering services to the public without a certificate of authorization and for breaching an agreement not to provide outside services while employed by the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Discipline Committee made no palpable and overriding errors in its factual findings.

The Court also confirmed that under the Professional Engineers Act, all licensed professional engineers require a certificate of authorization to offer or provide services to the public.

Finally, the Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding procedural unfairness, bias, and abuse of process.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to deliver copies of his schedule A productions and to attend an examination for discovery.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment due to late service of the motion materials, which was denied given the age of the 2015 action and the need to move it forward.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the motion was premature, that the defendant had waived its right to discovery, or that a notice of examination was required.

The plaintiff was ordered to provide electronic copies of his productions and attend an examination for discovery.

Costs decision following a successful application for a passing of accounts in an estate matter.

The court reaffirmed that the modern approach to estate litigation costs applies the general civil litigation principle that the loser pays, subject to Rule 57 and limited exceptions.

The respondent rejected a reasonable Offer to Settle and conducted the litigation in a manner that unnecessarily complicated a relatively straightforward estate dispute.

As a result, the court ordered partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Additional reimbursement was also ordered for an unnecessary banking expense debited from the estate account.

The applicant, a former teacher whose certificate was cancelled in 1997 following a criminal conviction, applied for a new Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Registrar referred the application to the Discipline Committee pursuant to s. 33(15) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing he should be treated as a new applicant under s. 18 and that s. 33(15) could not apply retrospectively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the legislative amendment applied retrospectively as its purpose was to protect the public, not to punish, and the Registrar did not breach any duty of fairness.