Teresa-Anne Martin

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration as a career college under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The Superintendent proposed refusal based on the appellant's sole director failing to disclose his involvement in several other entities and demonstrating a pattern of disorganization and carelessness.

The Tribunal found that the director's failure to disclose his roles in other businesses and his careless conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate a career college in compliance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The appellant, a private career college operating a truck driving school, appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its registration and a Notice of Immediate Suspension issued by the Superintendent of Private Career Colleges.

The Superintendent alleged various safety and administrative contraventions, including improper instructor-to-student ratios, inadequate backing instruction space, and deficient record-keeping.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had committed several administrative contraventions, the Superintendent failed to prove the more serious safety allegations, such as crediting out-of-ratio instruction hours or intentionally obstructing the investigation.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant demonstrated a willingness to comply and had proposed reasonable solutions in its Action Plan.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to lift the suspension and renew the registration, subject to strict conditions including the appointment of a compliance monitor for six months.

The plaintiff, Marnie Affleck, sued Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Sunrise of Erin Mills, Jennifer Seehra, and Elisabette Garcia for negligent infliction of nervous shock and defamation, seeking substantial damages.

The claims against her sister and father's estate were dismissed earlier.

The plaintiff, self-represented, alleged that the defendants unreasonably impeded her ability to see her mother, a resident at Sunrise, causing her trauma and injuries.

The court found that the defendants' actions were reasonable and justified, taken to protect the mother from financial and emotional abuse by the plaintiff, and to maintain a safe environment for staff and other residents.

The court also found the plaintiff's evidence lacked credibility and medical support for her alleged injuries.

The claims for negligent infliction of nervous shock and defamation were dismissed.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $330,000 to the defendants due to the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and lack of preparation.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action after the plaintiff failed to comply with a court order requiring him to appoint a new lawyer or file a notice of intention to act in person.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a cross-motion to remove the defendant's counsel, arguing a conflict of interest because the counsel was an in-house lawyer for Aviva, the insurer for both parties.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding no lawyer-client relationship existed between the plaintiff and Aviva's in-house counsel.

The court adjourned the defendant's motion to dismiss, granting the plaintiff an extension to comply with the order to appoint counsel or act in person.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from State Farm.

A priority dispute between insurers was resolved, with Western Assurance assuming carriage of the claim.

State Farm brought a motion on consent to add Western Assurance as a party and remove itself from the arbitration.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code to add and remove parties, and concluding that the proposed order was the most just, quickest, and least expensive manner of proceeding.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents (2005 and 2007).

He sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer for the 2007 accident, claiming it exacerbated his cognitive and executive function impairments from the 2005 accident.

The insurer argued the impairments were solely from the 2005 accident.

Applying the material contribution test, the arbitrator found the 2007 accident materially contributed to the applicant's worsening cognitive impairments.

The arbitrator approved treatment plans for occupational therapy, speech therapy, rehab coaching, and a catastrophic assessment, but denied duplicate occupational therapy and case management services (as catastrophic impairment was not yet determined).

A special award was denied, but interest on overdue payments was granted.