Symon Zucker

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearms offences after accidentally discharging a loaded handgun while intoxicated and on bail for intimate partner violence, despite a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of 30 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was disproportionate and sought a conditional sentence, tendering fresh evidence of rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, concluding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and dismissing the fresh evidence application under the Palmer test.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding they knowingly registered an invalid bill of sale and breached registration conditions, resulting in an eight-month suspension for the individual appellant and a two-year lien registration prohibition for the corporate appellant.

The Divisional Court upheld the liability findings but allowed the appeal in part on penalty, finding the sanctions were at the high end for an isolated incident and lacking in reasoning linking them to the misconduct.

The sanctions were varied to time completed.

The appellants' appeal from a decision of the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act was adjourned to April 14, 2026, for a half-day hearing, through no fault of the parties.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's officers failed to disclose required information, made false statements on applications, lacked financial responsibility after a $30 million loan was called in, and traded vehicles while unregistered.

The Tribunal found that while the officers did fail to disclose certain information and made false statements regarding the loan, the Registrar did not prove the appellant lacked financial responsibility or traded vehicles illegally in Ontario.

The Tribunal concluded that outright refusal was not required to protect the public interest and ordered the Registrar to approve the registration subject to strict conditions.

Professional discipline decision arising from admitted misconduct in three separate notices of hearing involving a prohibited business relationship with an unregistered clinic operator, substandard endodontic care and inducements to withdraw a complaint, and sexual abuse and boundary violations involving patients.

The panel held that the admissions and agreed statement of facts established conflict of interest, fee sharing, failure to maintain standards of practice, abuse of a patient, sexual abuse of a patient, and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the joint-submission public-interest standard, the panel accepted the proposed penalty and rejected a request to convert the mandatory oral reprimand into a written reprimand.

The registrant’s certificate was revoked immediately, with a reprimand, reimbursement and security orders, a $35,000 fine, and $10,000 in costs.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson based on allegations of fraudulent vehicle registrations and breaches of prior consent orders.

The Tribunal found that the salesperson had improperly registered a vehicle using an invalid bill of sale, breaching the conditions of registration and providing reasonable grounds to believe business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty.

However, the Tribunal found this was an isolated incident and not a systematic abuse of the public.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to revoke the registrations, but instead to impose an eight-month suspension on the salesperson and attach strict conditions regarding liens and out-of-province vehicle registrations to the dealer's registration.

In a professional discipline hearing, the registrant admitted falsifying dental records and backdating insurance-related documents for multiple patients so they could maximize year-end benefits.

The panel found professional misconduct proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 26, 28, 33, and 59 of s. 2 of Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint submissions on penalty, the panel accepted a joint penalty and costs submission.

The order imposed a five-month suspension, remedial coursework, 24 months of practice monitoring, a prohibition on employing the registrant’s wife in the practice, and $10,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found a dentist guilty of professional misconduct for practising at a clinic owned and operated by a non-member, thereby creating prohibited conflicts of interest and impermissible fee sharing.

The registrant also failed to advise the regulator of all practice locations, and the panel held that the cumulative conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical, although one unadmitted particular alleging treatment planning with the non-member was not proven.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a four-month suspension, remedial education, practice monitoring, reporting obligations, and costs.

The decision emphasizes public protection, specific and general deterrence, and remediation in professional discipline.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking their registrations for breaching conditions and ungovernability.

A single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed their motion for a stay pending appeal.

The appellants brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside that order.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's application of the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The appellants, a motor vehicle salesperson and a motor vehicle dealer, appealed a Tribunal decision directing the revocation of their registrations to the Divisional Court.

They brought a motion before the Tribunal for a stay of the revocation decision pending the outcome of their appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm, as their anticipated financial losses and business closure could be quantified in monetary terms.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay, as the public interest in consumer protection outweighed the appellants' private commercial interests, given their history of non-compliance with registration conditions.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellants brought a preliminary motion seeking a stay of proceedings due to the Registrar's late disclosure of documents, which the Tribunal dismissed, finding that an adjournment cured any procedural unfairness.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the appellants breached multiple conditions of their registrations, including trading in motor vehicles before completing a required certification course and failing to disclose material facts about a vehicle's pre-existing engine defect to a purchaser.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with law, integrity, and honesty.

Finding that the appellants had a history of non-compliance and could not be relied upon to adhere to conditions, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellants, Rouzbeh Behrouz and Majestic Food Service Inc., appealed an order giving effect to a Letter Rogatory from a U.S. District Court, compelling testimony and document production for a U.S. proceeding alleging violations of Iran-trade embargo laws.

The appellants argued the application judge erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay and failing to properly apply the Friction factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error.

The court affirmed the application judge's reliance on evidence for determining relevance and necessity, and his proper application of the Friction factors and balancing of Canadian sovereignty with the enforcement request.

The court also agreed that the evidence sought was not otherwise obtainable, deferring to the U.S. court's conclusion and noting that Canadian residents are not compellable witnesses in U.S. proceedings for testimony or document production.

This motion concerned the removal of RSM Canada Limited as the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) of the Estate of Peter Trezzi and as the court-appointed Manager of two corporations.

The moving party, Albert Trezzi, also sought the appointment of himself and his two sisters as Estate Trustees.

RSM did not oppose its discharge but sought a holdback for professional fees related to a pending passing of accounts.

The court granted the removal of RSM and the appointment of the new Estate Trustees, and ordered a holdback of $250,000 for RSM's fees, finding it equitable and consistent with public policy, despite the beneficiaries' objections to the quantum.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no submissions on costs were made, the court made no order as to costs.

In a professional discipline matter, the registrant sought reconsideration after failing to deliver written submissions on penalty and costs by the agreed deadline.

The Panel held it was functus once it had released its final decision and found no authority in the governing legislation or committee rules to reopen the matter.

In any event, it would not have exercised any such discretion because counsel ignored follow-up communications, sought no extension, and offered no adequate explanation for the delay.

The request to reconsider the released penalty and costs decision was refused.

In a professional discipline penalty and costs decision, the panel addressed the mandatory consequences of a finding that a registrant sexually abused a patient by engaging in sexual intercourse.

Applying the mandatory penalty provisions, the panel held that revocation and a reprimand were required.

The panel also ordered reimbursement to the College for therapy and counselling funding already accessed by the patient and found this to be an appropriate case for a substantial costs order because the member’s conduct unnecessarily prolonged the hearing and increased expense.

The College recovered two-thirds of its actual costs, and the patient-identity publication restriction remained in place.

The applicants sought to enforce letters rogatory issued by a Michigan court in a civil criminal-enterprise proceeding.

The application, initially against seven non-parties, was bifurcated to focus on two respondents, Rouzbeh Behrouz and Majestic Food Services, Inc., who later became parties to the Michigan action and opposed the letters rogatory.

The court addressed significant evidentiary challenges, particularly regarding hearsay, clarifying that the Ontario court's role is not to determine the truth of allegations but whether the evidence sought is relevant and necessary for the foreign court.

The court found that the applicants satisfied the prerequisites and criteria for enforcing letters rogatory, including relevance, necessity, and unobtainability of evidence, and that granting the order was not contrary to public policy.

The application was granted.

Following a finding that the member sexually abused a patient by engaging in intercourse, the College brought a written motion for an immediate interim suspension pending penalty and for an expedited penalty hearing.

The member did not oppose the relief sought.

The panel held that s. 51(4.2) of the Health Professions Procedural Code required an immediate suspension where the sexual abuse involved intercourse and left no discretion.

The motion was granted and the penalty hearing was directed to proceed on an expedited basis.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that a dentist committed professional misconduct by engaging in sexual relations with a patient who was not his spouse within the meaning of the governing health professions legislation.

The panel rejected the respondent’s position that a same-day proxy Islamic divorce and private Islamic marriage rendered the patient his spouse, finding the evidence unreliable and, in any event, insufficient for recognition under Canadian law.

The panel also found a boundary violation where the respondent co-signed a patient’s mortgage and became a co-mortgagee on the property.

The allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities, including sexual abuse of a patient and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure.

The court found the father in breach of his disclosure obligations, noting his evasive and selective disclosure and purposely opaque financial situation.

Citing established jurisprudence on the fundamental nature of financial disclosure in family law, the court granted the mother's motion, struck the father's pleadings, granted leave for an uncontested trial, allowed the mother to amend her pleadings to seek a restraining order, and ordered the father to pay $7,500 in costs.