William Arnold Chat Ortved

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's decision that had overturned a Discipline Committee penalty decision.

The Discipline Committee found that a physician sexually abused four female patients by unnecessarily touching their breasts and nipples during stethoscope examinations, and engaged in inappropriate conduct with a fifth patient.

The Committee imposed a six-month suspension with practice restrictions, supervision requirements, and mandatory training.

The Divisional Court found the penalty manifestly unfit and remitted it for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court failed to properly apply the deferential reasonableness standard of review, instead substituting its own view of the appropriate penalty.

The Court of Appeal restored the Discipline Committee's penalty, finding no inconsistent findings of fact and that the penalty fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a joint and several costs order of $247,566.14 made against them following the respondent's successful motion to appoint a receiver.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision to award costs jointly and severally, including against the individual moving party personally.

The court held that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion and that the stringent test for granting leave to appeal a costs order was not met.

Following the appointment of a receiver over corporate defendants’ books and records in a commercial dispute involving alleged fraud and breach of agreements, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $298,000, including substantial disbursements for forensic accounting services.

The defendants challenged the reasonableness of the fees and argued certain expert-related disbursements were not recoverable.

The court held that detailed cost outlines rather than docket production were sufficient, emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party under Rule 57.01(1), and confirmed that expert forensic accounting fees were recoverable.

Costs were fixed at $180,000 plus HST for fees and $67,566.14 for disbursements, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The plaintiff moved for the appointment of a receiver over the books and records of several corporate defendants following loans exceeding USD $111 million for casino and gaming ventures in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic.

The defendants failed to provide required financial reporting, access to records, and audited statements despite contractual obligations and prior court orders.

Evidence indicated possible fraudulent reporting, significant discrepancies in financial information, and unexplained diversion of approximately $50 million to related entities.

The court held that the defendants had repeatedly obstructed access to records and that the circumstances justified the equitable appointment of a receiver to secure and review corporate books and records.

The motion was granted.

The Crown appealed an order quashing the validation of service ex juris on the respondent foreign corporations for summonses relating to fraud charges.

The Crown argued that mailing the summonses from Canada constituted service in Canada and that the Provincial Offences Act and Criminal Code authorized such service.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that in penal proceedings, a summons cannot be served outside Canada without express statutory authorization, which neither the Criminal Code nor the Provincial Offences Act provides.

Following a successful appeal that allowed the plaintiff's claim to proceed to trial, the parties agreed on costs of $44,000 but disputed the timing of payment.

The plaintiff, an impecunious litigant represented on a pro bono basis, sought costs payable forthwith.

The defendant argued costs should be in the cause or paid into court as security.

The Court of Appeal ordered the costs to be paid forthwith, noting that the appeal costs were stand-alone and that ordering costs payable forthwith assists impecunious litigants and encourages lawyers to accept pro bono retainers.

The appellant was wrongfully charged with second-degree murder based on an autopsy performed by the respondent pathologist.

After the charges were withdrawn, the appellant sued the respondent for negligent investigation and misfeasance in public office.

The respondent successfully moved at the Divisional Court to strike the claims based on absolute witness immunity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the claims related to the respondent's role as a public official investigating a suspicious death under the Coroners Act, not merely his testimony.

The Court found that the scope of witness immunity in this context is unsettled law and must be determined at trial on a full factual record.

The plaintiff was charged with the second-degree murder of her daughter based on an autopsy report by the defendant forensic pathologist, which concluded the cause of death was multiple stab wounds.

After a second autopsy revealed the wounds were likely caused by dog bites, the charges were withdrawn.

The plaintiff sued the pathologist for negligence, bad faith, and misfeasance in public office.

The pathologist appealed a motion judge's refusal to strike the claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the witness immunity rule applied to the pathologist's autopsy report and testimony at the preliminary inquiry, rendering him immune from civil suit.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondent doctor.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that summary judgment is generally inappropriate when the rule of discoverability is central to a limitation issue and facts are in dispute.

Furthermore, the court held that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is not related to a claim for malpractice in respect of professional services and is therefore not subject to the limitation period in the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The appellant doctor performed cosmetic surgery on the respondent's eyelid.

The respondent suffered complications and required revisionary surgeries.

She sued for negligence based on a lack of informed consent.

The trial judge found that a reasonable person in the respondent's position, if informed of the material risks, would not have proceeded with the surgery at that time due to her financial situation and career plans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor's appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the modified objective test for causation from Reibl v. Hughes, properly considering the respondent's special circumstances.

Medical negligence appeal arising from a catastrophic birth injury after an emergency Caesarean section.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings on negligence and causation, numerous evidentiary rulings concerning expert reports, foundational facts, discovery corrections, and cross-examination, and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based largely on the trial judge's handling of extreme incivility by defence counsel during a 165-day trial.

The Court of Appeal held there was ample evidence supporting the findings that no negligence was proven and that the injury was caused by a sudden placental abruption.

It further held that virtually all evidentiary rulings were correct, any errors were inconsequential, and an informed observer would not apprehend bias.

The appeal was dismissed, but the trial judgment was varied so the dismissal was without costs.

On an employer's appeal from the dismissal of its appeal from a Board of Inquiry decision, the court considered the legality under the Human Rights Code of a workplace alcohol and drug testing policy for employees in safety-sensitive positions.

The court held that substance abuse, including perceived substance abuse, is a handicap and applied the unified three-step BFOR analysis from Meiorin to assess whether the impugned rules were justified.

Random drug testing, pre-employment drug testing, and mandatory disclosure, reassignment and reinstatement rules were discriminatory and not justified, but random alcohol testing could be justified as a BFOR if sanctions for a positive result were individually tailored.

The court also held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the policy's drug-testing provisions, set aside the finding of a s. 13(1) breach, upheld the mental anguish award, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a beneficial owner of common voting shares of the respondent bank, submitted proposals for inclusion in a management proxy circular.

The bank declined to include the proposals because the appellant was not a registered shareholder.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 143(1) of the Bank Act, only a 'shareholder entitled to vote' may submit a proposal, and under s. 93(1), the bank may treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to vote.

Therefore, a beneficial shareholder cannot submit a shareholder's proposal.