Sarah Willis

The appellant, a registered physiotherapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for inappropriate touching during a patient's ankle treatment.

The Committee imposed a three-month suspension and costs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee breached procedural fairness by attempting to physically recreate his described treatment techniques during their private deliberations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's actions were a proper evaluation of the evidentiary record and its credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The penalty was also upheld as falling within a reasonable range.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion seeking leave to bring a derivative action in the name of the respondent corporation pursuant to s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge applied the wrong legal test and considered irrelevant factors when determining whether the action appeared to be in the interests of the corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the legal test and appropriately considered multiple relevant factors, including the appellant's negligible shareholdings, the lack of support from other shareholders, and the potential diversion of management resources.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment on a defaulted mortgage over the defendants' property in Tweed, Ontario.

The self-represented defendants argued the motion should have been brought in Belleville, but the court allowed it to proceed in Ottawa.

The court found no genuine issue regarding the default and granted summary judgment for the principal amount of $194,253.85, with a reference ordered to determine the exact final amount including interest and costs.

Judgment for possession was also granted but stayed for 30 days.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs following their successful motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The defendant, Mr. Cabezas, argued that costs should be reserved for the trial judge or significantly reduced.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered costs in the cause.

The decision emphasized that it is generally preferable to reserve costs for interlocutory injunctions to the trial judge, given the absence of a final determination of rights and the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages.

Conflicting positions on factual complexity and proportionality also made it difficult to fix costs at this stage.

The University of Toronto Graduate Students’ Union (UTGSU) challenged a referendum on its continued membership in the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and CFS-Ontario (CFS-O), arguing that the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) made unreasonable decisions regarding polling stations and mail-out ballots, which led to a failure to meet quorum.

The CFS sought a declaration that UTGSU remained a member.

The court found that the relationship between the organizations and their members was contractual, governed by bylaws.

The court declined to imply a term into the bylaws to alter quorum calculation for disenfranchised voters.

It also found that the CRO's decisions were within his discretion and not made in bad faith, applying a subjective standard to his judgment.

Consequently, the court granted the CFS's application, declaring UTGSU's continued membership, and dismissed UTGSU's counter-application.

The Plaintiffs, Accreditation Canada International and Accreditation Canada, brought a motion to extend and vary an interlocutory injunction against former employees, José Luis Cabezas Guerra and Bieu (Marty) Van Huynh, and their company, Efficiency on Health Services Canada Inc. The Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and confidence due to the Defendants' use of confidential information and solicitation of clients under misleading trade names.

The court applied the R.J.R. Macdonald test for injunctions, finding a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiffs.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was granted.