William Robert Watson

The applicant, a dentist, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had upheld a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario requiring the applicant to appear for a caution and complete a remediation program regarding record-keeping, informed consent, and case work-up.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused further written submissions after the matter was remitted by the Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decision was reasonable.

A child protection application concerning two children found in need of protection due to high-conflict domestic circumstances between their parents.

The mother sought sole custody with no access to the father, a restraining order, and costs.

The father sought to reinstate access with a view to restoring joint custody.

The court found that the children's consistent refusal to see their father, combined with the father's uncontrolled emotional dysregulation, verbal abuse, past assault, and threatening comments, justified a no-access order.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, imposed restrictions on future access applications, issued a restraining order, and declined to award costs against the father.

The applicant sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement signed prior to marriage that waived spousal support and equalization, and alternatively sought spousal support despite the agreement.

The court found the agreement was valid and binding, dismissing claims of duress, unconscionability, and material non-disclosure.

However, applying the Miglin framework, the court awarded the applicant a $250,000 lump sum in spousal support, finding that her unexpected severe health issues and resulting inability to work constituted a significant change in circumstances that made strict enforcement of the support waiver non-compliant with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The accused was charged with 11 counts, including assault, uttering threats, and mischief, arising from several incidents involving his estranged wife.

The court applied the W.D. analysis framework to assess conflicting evidence and witness credibility.

The accused was found guilty on three counts: assault (July 9, 2014), uttering a threat to cause death (November 30, 2015), and mischief for destroying a pillow (November 30, 2015).

He was acquitted on the remaining eight counts, including possession of a weapon dangerous to public peace, uttering a threat against his son, unlawful confinement, and other assault and mischief allegations, primarily due to a lack of corroborating evidence or the presence of reasonable doubt.

I.P.W. was found guilty on two counts involving his stepdaughter, A.H.: touching a person under 16 for a sexual purpose (s. 151 CCC) and sexual assault (s. 271 CCC), occurring between 2010 and 2014 when A.H. was 10-14 years old.

The incidents included various forms of inappropriate touching.

The court considered I.P.W.'s personal circumstances, a psychological report assessing him as a low risk to reoffend (though he denied wrongdoing), and a victim impact statement from A.H. The Crown sought a sentence of 1 to 4 years, while the defence proposed 8 to 12 months.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the s. 151 CCC count was stayed, and I.P.W. was sentenced to 18 months in custody for sexual assault.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued supplemental reasons varying a child support order.

The court accepted the respondent's 2015 income at $90,735.00, setting child support at $1,294.00 per month for two children, effective January 1, 2015.

Accumulated arrears of $16,648.00 were ordered to be paid at $175.00 per month.

The respondent was also ordered to provide annual income tax returns and notices of assessment.

A charge was placed on the respondent's property as security for child support.

The respondent's initial application to reduce support, eliminate arrears, and terminate support for one child was largely withdrawn or denied, except for the variation of child support based on updated income.

The applicant was awarded $2,000.00 in costs due to the respondent's protracted conduct and inadequate financial disclosure.

A costs decision following a jurisdictional hearing regarding custody and access of a child.

The applicant mother sought to maintain jurisdiction in Ontario after relocating with the child from Nova Scotia without the respondent father's consent.

The respondent father sought to have the matter heard in Nova Scotia.

The court determined that Nova Scotia was the correct jurisdiction.

The respondent was successful and sought costs of $9,250.00.

The court awarded costs of $3,000.00 inclusive of tax and expenses, considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the mother's financial circumstances, the lack of reasonable settlement offers, and the mother's unreasonable conduct in unilaterally relocating the child.

The applicant mother removed the child from Nova Scotia to Ontario without notice to the father, claiming it was a vacation.

When she did not return on the scheduled date, she commenced an application for custody in Ontario.

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The father obtained a custody order in Nova Scotia.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Nova Scotia, not Ontario, and that the mother had removed the child without the father's consent or acquiescence.

The court vacated the ex parte order granted on November 3, 2015, and declined jurisdiction, finding that Nova Scotia was the appropriate forum.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's Motion to Change due to his chronic failure to pay child support, spousal support, and multiple costs orders.

The father owed over $140,000 in arrears and costs, despite having the ability to pay.

The court found the father's non-compliance to be deliberate, willful, and blatant.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the father's Motion to Change, ordered him to pay all arrears and costs before bringing any future motions, and required him to post $25,000 in security for costs for any future proceedings.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal challenged the trial judge’s refusal to exclude breathalyzer evidence, arguing that the roadside demand for a breath sample was invalid because the approved screening device test was administered at the police detachment rather than at the roadside, allegedly engaging the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The court applied the standard of review for summary conviction appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s factual findings and no error of law.

The court concluded that the “forthwith” requirement for the breath demand was satisfied and that the brief delay did not create a right to consult counsel before the screening test.

The conviction was upheld.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial in which the plaintiff recovered damages against the municipal employer but failed against several individual defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs consequences.

Applying Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of his settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter because the judgment exceeded the offer.

The court assessed reasonable hourly rates for counsel and reduced excessive paralegal time and rates while disallowing law clerk administrative costs.

The successful individual defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs for their defence.

A Sanderson order was granted requiring the municipal defendant to pay the costs of the successful individual defendants given the unusual and confusing factual circumstances that justified joining all defendants in the action.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued that a subsequent demand made by a breathalyzer technician without reasonable and probable grounds invalidated the initial valid roadside demand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the initial demand was a continuing demand that remained in force until complied with, and the subsequent demand was merely a good faith attempt to give the appellant a further opportunity to comply.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the police officers improperly made a blood demand instead of a breath demand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to believe a breath sample was impractical because the appellant was in the hospital being treated for a serious bleeding head laceration and was belligerent.