Disruptive Physician Behaviour and Hospital Liability in Tort: Rosenhek v. Windsor Regional Hospital
|
|
- Timothy Tate
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Disruptive Physician Behaviour and Hospital Liability in Tort: Rosenhek v. Windsor Regional Hospital Shantona Chaudhury Pape Barristers Professional Corporation In a January 2010 decision, Rosenhek v. Windsor Regional Hospital, 2010 ONCA 13 ( Rosenhek ), the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a trial decision awarding over 3 million dollars to a physician whose hospital privileges had been revoked in bad faith. 1 The Court held that hospitals have a duty to exercise their power to revoke privileges with regard to the public interest and in good faith. Exercising this power in bad faith will ground a claim for the tort of misfeasance in a public office. In Dr. Rosenhek s case, the Ontario Hospital Appeal Board (OHAB) found that the hospital revoked his privileges based on nothing more than alleged interpersonal problems, i.e. because he didn t fit in. OHAB reinstated his privileges. Dr. Rosenhek then commenced a civil action for lost income. First the trial court, then the Court of Appeal, found that the hospital had acted in bad faith and awarded damages accordingly. Prior to Rosenhek, a hospital that improperly exercised its revocation power might have expected its decision to be overturned on review or appeal, but would not have expected to face civil liability consequences. As a result of the Rosenhek decision, hospitals (in Ontario, at least) can now expect not only administrative and/or judicial review of their revocation decisions, but if the circumstances warrant, a lawsuit. The post-script to the Rosenhek case is that after his reinstatement, Dr. Rosenhek faced privilege revocation proceedings a second time, with very different results. Having learned from its mistakes, the hospital acted with far more circumspection in Round Two, and its decision was 1 Rosenhek v. Windsor Regional Hospital, 2010 ONCA 13, aff g [2007] O.J. No ; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused, [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 89 (October 21, 2010) ( Rosenhek ) 1
2 upheld by the Health Professions Appeal Review Board (HPARB) in A comparison of the two cases may prove instructive for hospitals seeking to avoid the avenue of liability paved by Rosenhek. The legal innovation and implications of the Rosenhek decision Although Rosenhek was not the first decision in Canada awarding damages to a doctor whose privileges had been wrongfully revoked, it was the first to recognize that this conduct can constitute misfeasance in a public office. Previous decisions awarding damages to physicians in similar circumstances were a) few and far between, and b) somewhat ambiguous as to the cause of action being pleaded. At trial, Dr. Rosenhek successfully relied on an Alberta Court of Appeal case dating back to 1978: Abouna v. Foothills Provincial General Hospital Board. 3 In that case, the court concluded that the wrongful revocation of a physician s privileges constituted infringement of a legal right from which damages could flow. The Abouna case, meanwhile, relied on a 1975 Supreme Court decision, Pilotte v. Bellechasse Hospital Corp, in which the court held that the revocation of a doctor s appointment was not done in accordance with hospital regulations, and that this breach automatically gives rise to a remedy [ ] at least an award of damages. 4 While these decisions came to the same result as Rosenhek, neither of them elucidated the legal basis for liability, or cause of action, in these circumstances. As such, they did not set much of a precedent. 2 Rosenhek v. Windsor Regional Hospital, 2009 CanLII (ON HSARB) ( Rosenhek 2 ). It is important to note that leave to appeal this decision was sought, but denied because the application was brought out of time. Other than in the context of this motion for extension of time, there has been no judicial consideration of the HPARB decision. 3 Abouna v. Foothills Provincial General Hospital Board, [1978] A.J. No. 964, paras Hôpital Bellechasse v. Pilotte, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 454 at pp
3 Not so with Rosenhek, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal put an end to the uncertainty by holding that if a hospital revokes privileges in bad faith, it will be liable for the tort of misfeasance in a public office. Misfeasance is a tort that can be brought for intentional acts of wrongdoing by public officials that have harmed the economic or other interests of private persons: 5 the iconic example is Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 6 in which former Premier and Attorney General of Quebec, Maurice Duplessis, was found liable for misfeasance after wrongfully ordering the cancellation of an individual s liquor license. Misfeasance is made out when there is: (i) deliberate unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions; and (ii) awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff. Alongside deliberate unlawful conduct and the requisite knowledge, a plaintiff must also prove the other requirements common to all torts. More specifically, the plaintiff must prove that the tortious conduct was the legal cause of his or her injuries, and that the injuries suffered are compensable in tort law. Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263 As Rosenhek demonstrates, the definition of public office is wide, encompassing not only government officials, but those who are empowered to act by statute and charged with doing so in the public interest. The Court held that a hospital s power to revoke privileges must be exercised having regard to the public interest. It is a statutory, public power, and its bad faith exercise can therefore give rise to a claim for misfeasance: [21] We are satisfied that a bad faith exercise of a statutory, public power can, in law, provide a basis for a tort claim by Dr. Rosenhek against the hospital: see Harris v. The Law Society of Alberta, [1936] S.C.R. 88; Brown v. Waterloo Regional Board of Commissioners of Police (1983), 43 O.R. (2d) 113 (C.A.), at pp ; Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at paras ; Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 2006 CanLII 9693 (ON C.A.), (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2006] 2 S.C.R. ix; Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (S.C.C.), [1959] S.C.R The Board s power to revoke Dr. Rosenhek s privileges is found in s. 33(c) of the Public Hospitals Act. That power, in turn, is part of a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the operations of public hospitals. Hospitals are funded largely through the public purse. A purposive reading of the statutory provisions relating to the power to revoke privileges demonstrates that it is exercised having regard to various publicinterest factors relating to, in particular, the quality of care provided by the hospital. Having 5 L.N. Klar, Tort Law, 4 th ed., 2008 Thomson Canada Ltd., p Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R
4 regard to these features, we think that the exercise of the revocation power is properly characterized as public in nature. [ ] [36] The Board, in bad faith, exercised its decision-making function for an ulterior purpose and not for the public good, in circumstances where it had to know that its conduct would likely injure the plaintiff. We are satisfied that the tort of misfeasance in a public office was made out: see Odhavji Estate, at paras ; Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England (No. 3), [2000] 2 W.L.R (H.L.), at p We would not disturb the trial judge s finding that the Hospital is liable to Dr. Rosenhek. 7 This is a precedent-setting decision with important practical implications for hospitals, physicians, and the health law bar. Physicians who feel that their privileges have been wrongfully revoked now have a clear path to a civil lawsuit: in essence, Rosenhek recognized a cause of action analogous to wrongful dismissal for aggrieved physicians. Since revocation can significantly impede a physician s ability to practice elsewhere, and since physician incomes tend to be high, the damages sought in these actions are likely to be considerable. Although the Rosenhek decision dealt only with revocation of privileges, it is reasonable to assume that decisions regarding staff appointments, re-appointments, suspensions, etc. will be subject to the same legal standard. And although the Rosenhek decision applies in Ontario only, it will almost certainly be used as persuasive authority by plaintiffs lawyers in other provinces. The hospital s conduct in Rosenhek: what not to do when faced with possible disruptive physician behaviour The facts in Rosenhek can be considered an example for hospitals of what not to do when faced with allegedly disruptive physician behaviour. 7 Dr. Rosenhek also based his claim on the tort of intentional interference with economic relations, whose elements are: i) intent to injure; 2) interference with the plaintiff s business by illegal or unlawful means; 3) economic loss. Although the trial judge found that the hospital had acted unlawfully, this decision was based on the erroneous assumption that the hospital had breached certain statutory provisions which did not actually apply to this case. The Court of Appeal noted this error and based its decision on the tort of misfeasance rather than the tort of interference with economic relations (see Rosenhek, para. 19, footnote 2) 4
5 Dr. Rosenhek had a history of interpersonal difficulties with certain colleagues and members of the hospital administration. On March 23, 1989, Dr. Rosenhek was seeing patients at the hospital when he was summoned to the office of the executive director. The executive director handed him a letter which informed him that on recommendation of the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC), the Board of Governors had decided to revoke his privileges, effective immediately, pursuant to s. 33 of the Public Hospitals Act. The letter informed Dr. Rosenhek that he was entitled, upon request, to written reasons for the decision and to further hearing before (OHAB). Dr. Rosenhek was immediately escorted out of the building. Needless to say, Dr. Rosenhek availed himself of the further hearing. In 1994, OHAB found that Dr. Rosenhek had been denied procedural fairness, or what lawyers often refer to as natural justice. Specifically, OHAB found that: Dr. Rosenhek was never given Notice of the MAC meeting; Dr. Rosenhek was never given Notice of the MAC s recommendations to revoke his privileges; Dr. Rosenhek was not given an opportunity to appear before the Board of Governors when they revoked his privileges; Dr. Rosenhek was given no opportunity to respond to the MAC s recommendations; The written reasons Dr. Rosenhek ultimately received did not cite any recent acts or omissions consistent with past criticisms; The allegations against Dr. Rosenhek involved interpersonal relationships and a personality problem. OHAB therefore granted Dr. Rosenhek a hearing de novo. In its 1996 decision pursuant to this hearing, OHAB found that hospital administrators had revoked Dr. Rosenhek s privileges because they didn t like him and he didn t fit in. Rather than attempt to resolve whatever interpersonal conflicts existed, the hospital simply ousted him. OHAB set aside the revocation and reinstated Dr. Rosenhek s privileges, finding: This Board must, in the end, ask itself whether, in all the circumstances, the decision of the Hospital's Board of Governors to revoke Dr. Rosenhek's privileges was soundly based. On all the evidence, we have concluded that it was not. 5
6 It is clear from the evidence, indeed, from the Hospital's own evidence, that there is no question as to Dr. Rosenhek's professional competence. It is equally clear that the revocation of his privileges cannot be justified by any reasonable concern over the quality of his patient care. In the end, the Hospital's case comes down to the allegation that Dr. Rosenhek just did not fit in. But a hospital is not a fraternity, and fraternity notions of "fitting in" do not apply. The fact is that Dr. Rosenhek walked into a hornet's nest, not of his own making, in the form of the Critical Care Unit initiative. The very purpose of his recruitment by the Hospital left him on what turned out to be the losing side of the controversy. It is probably the case that he displayed a degree of arrogance in respect of his training and skills that exacerbated the situation. We say "probably" because it was a much-chastened Dr. Rosenhek whom we saw at the hearing, chastened by the havoc which revocation of his privileges has wreaked on what should have been, and hopefully will yet be, a brilliant career. There can be little doubt that the lack of coverage faced by Dr. Rosenhek and the Hospital's utter failure to take any steps, other than lip service, to assist in the resolution of that problem, further exacerbated this situation. All that having been said, however, whatever the contributing factors to the alleged interpersonal problems may have been, the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the problems were minor and certainly not such as to justify the extreme measure of revocation of privileges. When we are examining the question of "fitting in", this Board must take very seriously the testimony of the twelve nurses, eight physicians, seven patients and family members of patients and two medical secretaries, all of whom sang Dr. Rosenhek's praises. To be sure, hearings are not won or lost by counting the witnesses on each side. But against the evidence called by Dr. Rosenhek, the only first-hand evidence we have of his alleged inability to work within the Hospital structure, to work with professional colleagues and staff is that of Dr. Mandal. We find his evidence unconvincing. Dr. Rosenhek brought a civil suit in the Superior Court, seeking to recover lost income for the years during which he was unable to obtain privileges at any hospital due to the black mark of the revocation on his College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) record. The OHAB findings proved to be damning: although OHAB did not use the words bad faith, the trial judge had no difficulty in holding that the hospital s conduct, as described by OHAB, amounted not only to a denial of natural justice but to bad faith. The trial judge awarded Dr. Rosenhek approximately $3 million, plus interest, in damages. As previously discussed, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision and clarified the legal basis for it. The Court of Appeal emphasized that three factors in particular indicated that the hospital was acting in bad faith. First, the reasons cited by the hospital for revoking Dr. Rosenhek s privileges were devoid of merit, as indicated by the OHAB findings quoted above. As Doherty J.A. wrote, [w]hile a wrong decision, even a very wrong decision cannot be equated to a decision made in bad faith, a 6
7 decision may be so clearly wrong on the merits as to provide some evidentiary support for a finding of bad faith. We place this decision to revoke Dr. Rosenhek s privileges in this category. 8 Second, the timing and manner of the revocation demonstrated the hospital s bad faith: Dr. Rosenhek s privileges were revoked mid-term, two months after they had been renewed and a month before they were set to expire. There was no evidence that anything had changed between the time of renewal and the time of revocation. The manner of the revocation also evinced the hospital s bad faith: Dr. Rosenhek s privileges were terminated effective immediately and he was essentially frog-marched out of the building, for no good reason. Third, the Hospital s motive in revoking Dr. Rosenhek s privileges getting rid of a doctor who didn t fit in -- was improper. Rosenhek, Round Two: the hospital wises up In 2008, twelve years after Dr. Rosenhek s privileges had been reinstated, the hospital once again decided to oust him. This time, however, the hospital administration conducted itself quite differently. First, the hospital took care to dot the i s and cross the t s of procedural fairness. When Dr. Rosenhek re-applied for privileges for the year, he was notified that the MAC would be holding a special meeting on the issue, and was permitted to attend with counsel and to make oral and written submissions. The MAC nevertheless recommended to the Hospital Board that Dr. Rosenhek s application be denied. After a six day hearing, the Hospital Board refused Dr. Rosenhek s re-appointment, and further directed that patient and staff safety required that Dr. Rosenhek s privileges be revoked immediately. Dr. Rosenhek appealed to HPARB, which ultimately confirmed the Board s disposition in 30-page written reasons. 8 Rosenhek, para. 29 7
8 Second, the hospital was careful to frame its case in terms of concern for patient safety. In a 2004 case, Soremekun v. University Health Network, 9 the Ontario Divisional Court held that the test for the reasonableness of a decision to suspend a physician s privileges was whether the decision was based on a valid concern for patient safety. Patient safety is, understandably, accepted as a legitimate reason to revoke hospital privileges. Thus, although the underlying complaint in Rosenhek 2 still centred on the interpersonal difficulties which had been prominently featured and soundly rejected in Round One, the hospital now argued that these interpersonal difficulties had the effect of compromising patient safety. Rather than this being a matter of Dr. Rosenhek not fitting in, it became a matter of Dr. Rosenhek posing a threat to the quality of patient care. Although HPARB did not find that there was any problem with Dr. Rosenhek s competence or the quality of care he provided, it did hold that: physician conduct and behaviour are directly related to patient safety and a hospital s ability to effectively manage quality of care. Disruptive physician behaviour has repeatedly been found to affect a physician s hospital privileges and even constitute a ground for revocation of privileges. (See for example, Cooper v. Hospital Privileges Appeal Board, 1999 ABQB 165) By making the link to patient safety, the hospital shielded itself from the accusation that its administrators were acting like a frat house clique in turfing a doctor they did not like, and even assumed the all-important moral high ground. Although the HPARB decision has not been judicially considered other than in a motion for an extension of time for leave to appeal, and although there is some question as to whether the supposed compromise in patient care was sufficient to warrant immediate privilege revocation, it is evident that the hospital s conduct in Round Two was markedly more fool-proof than its conduct in Round One. Conclusion: the take-away message of the Rosenhek decisions 9 Soremekun v. University Health Network, 2004 CanLII (ON SCDC) 8
9 Caveat, nosocomium: the Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear that a bad faith decision to revoke a physician s hospital privileges will give rise to a claim in civil liability. The lesson from Rosenhek is that a decision to revoke privileges must be both procedurally and substantively fair. Hospital administrators must recognize that they exercise their powers in the public interest; they cannot exercise these powers arbitrarily or with regard to purely private interests. That said, the lesson from Rosenhek 2 may well be that the link between revocation and the public interest is not a particularly hard one to draw. 9
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and
More informationClaims for Misfeasance in Public Office: A Brief Summary
Claims for Misfeasance in Public Office: A Brief Summary By Lisa A. Peters May 25, 2007 This is a general overview of the subject matter and should not be relied upon as legal advice or opinion. For specific
More informationTORT LAW UPDATE: ELEMENTS OF THE TORT OF ABUSE OF AUTHORITY/MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE
TORT LAW UPDATE: ELEMENTS OF THE TORT OF ABUSE OF AUTHORITY/MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE ) \. These materials were prepared bydarryl Brown of the Civil Law Division,'Saskatchewan Justice, Regina.,Sl:iskatchewan
More informationHALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON
CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16 BEFORE: S. Martel: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 21, 2016 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: March 23, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016 ONWSIAT
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 BEFORE: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair HEARING: June 17, 2010 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: July 27, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010 ONWSIAT
More informationThe Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan. MARVIN TAYLOR, Applicant and REGINA POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent
The Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan MARVIN TAYLOR, Applicant and REGINA POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent LRB File No. 016-03; June 25, 2003 Chairperson, Gwen Gray, Q.C.; Members: Gloria Cymbalisty
More informationBy Bottom Line Research. Introduction
The Hammer of Civil Contempt: Case Comments on AMEC Foster Wheeler Americas Ltd. v. Attila Dogan Construction and Installation Co., 2016 ABQB 305 and 336239 Alberta Ltd. (c.o.b. Dave s Diesel Repair) v.
More informationCase Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines
Page 1 Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines Between Dr. George Beiko, Dr. Lawrence Aedy, Dr. Bruce Lennox and Dr. Gerald Scaife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, and Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: 20100218 Docket: S1-GS-16828 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Stephen Lank and Stephen Lank Enterprises Inc.
More information2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720
2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, 546291 Ontario
More informationPARAMEDICS. The Paramedics Act. being
1 PARAMEDICS c. P-0.1 The Paramedics Act being Chapter P-0.1* of The Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2007 (effective September 1, 2008; except section 54 effective April 1, 2007) as amended by the Statutes of
More informationKeith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants) v. The University of Calgary (respondent) ( ; 2010 ABQB 644)
In The Matter Of Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen on Findings of Non-Academic Misconduct on Appeal from the Ad Hoc Review Committee of the General Faculties Council Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants)
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No AMGAD A. HESSEIN. M.D., Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 15-2249 AMGAD A. HESSEIN. M.D., Appellant v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL THE AMERICAN BOARD OF ANESTHESIOLOGY INC; DOUGLAS B. COURSIN, M.D., Board of Directors,
More informationPage: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu
CITATION: Duong v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., 2011 ONSC 2534 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-46962CP DATE: 2011/05/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: DAVID DUONG, RINKU SINGH and CHRISTINA WOOF Plaintiffs
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT CARNWATH, KITELEY AND SWINTON JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COURT FILE NO.: DC - 06-0065 ML DATE: 20070905 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT CARNWATH, KITELEY AND SWINTON JJ. B E T W E E N: THE NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION - and - PALETTA INTERNATIONAL
More information2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 66 ELIZABETH II, Bill 87. (Chapter 11 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2017)
2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 66 ELIZABETH II, 2017 Bill 87 (Chapter 11 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2017) An Act to implement health measures and measures relating to seniors by enacting, amending
More informationMedical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN
Medical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN Medical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 25 of 2009 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 25 of 2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE Appellant AND FLORENCIO MARIN JOSE COYE Respondents BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley
More informationTITLE XXX OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS
New Hampshire Registration of Medical Technicians pg. 1 TITLE XXX OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS CHAPTER 328-I BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF MEDICAL TECHNICIANS Section 328-I:1 In this chapter: I. "Board'' means
More informationIndexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Laskin, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A. January 29, 2015.
Blake Moore (respondent) v. Dr. Tajedin Getahun, The Scarborough Hospital - General Division, Dr. John Doe and Jack Doe (appellant) (C58338; 2015 ONCA 55) Indexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court
More informationLegal Referral Service Rules for Panel Membership
Legal Referral Service Rules for Panel Membership Joint Committee on Legal Referral Service New York City Bar Association and The New York County Lawyers Association Amended as of May 1, 2015 Table of
More informationPrintable Lesson Materials
Printable Lesson Materials Print these materials as a study guide These printable materials allow you to study away from your computer, which many students find beneficial. These materials consist of two
More informationThe Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008
The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008 MANAGING YOUR MULTIPLE ROLES AS TRIBUNAL COUNSEL By Gilbert Van Nes, General Counsel & Settlement Officer Alberta Environmental
More informationDeal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc.
Deal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc. Huy Do Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP & Antonio Di Domenico Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 1 OVERVIEW
More informationCHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Fox v. Narine, 2016 ONSC 6499 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526934 DATE: 20161020 RE: CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE
More informationMIDWIFERY. The Midwifery Act. being
1 The Midwifery Act being Chapter M-14.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1999 (effective February 23, 2007, except for subsections 7(2) to (5), sections 8 to 10, not yet proclaimed) as amended by the
More informationDISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES. Andrew J. Heal
DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES Andrew J. Heal ANDREW J. HEAL, PARTNER HEAL & Co. LLP - 2 - DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor
More informationPROSECUTING CASES BEFORE PROFESSIONAL BODIES DARCIA G. SCHIRR, Q.C. Presentation October 11 and 12, 2011
PROSECUTING CASES BEFORE PROFESSIONAL BODIES DARCIA G. SCHIRR, Q.C. Presentation October 11 and 12, 2011 INTRODUCTION Prosecuting cases before professional regulatory bodies can be challenging for all
More informationCase Note. Carty v London Borough Of Croydon. Andrew Knott. I Context
Case Note Carty v London Borough Of Croydon Andrew Knott Macrossans Lawyers, Brisbane, Australia I Context The law regulating schools, those who work in them, and those who deal with them, involves increasingly
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
More informationHealth Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 Complaints and Discipline Process
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 Complaints and Discipline Process The following notes have been prepared to explain the complaints process under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
More informationBill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) PREFACE...
More informationADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN CANADA -AN OVERVIEW-
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN CANADA -AN OVERVIEW- CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN D. RICHARD FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL, CANADA Bangkok November 2007 INTRODUCTION In Canada, administrative tribunals are established by
More informationCanadian Systems of Law Contract and Tort Law for Professionals There are two systems of law that operate in Canada: Common Law and Civil Law.
Canadian Systems of Law Contract and Tort Law for Professionals There are two systems of law that operate in Canada: Common Law and Civil Law. Common Law operates in all Canadian Provinces and territories
More informationCase 4:15-cv Document 31 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORDER
Case 4:15-cv-01371 Document 31 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GRIER PATTON AND CAMILLE PATTON, Plaintiffs, and DAVID A.
More informationThe Chiropractic Act, 1994
1 CHIROPRACTIC, 1994 c. C-10.1 The Chiropractic Act, 1994 being Chapter C-10.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1994 (effective January 1, 1995) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2004, c.l-16.1;
More informationDISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO This decision was followed by an appeal, the results of which can be found at the end of this document. PANEL: Sarah Corkey, RN Chairperson Susan
More informationHealth Law. Tracey Tremayne-Lloyd Dr. Gary Srebrolow
Health Law Research ethics approval for human and animal experimentation: Consequences of failing to obtain approval including legal and professional liability Tracey Tremayne-Lloyd* Dr. Gary Srebrolow**
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. KENT, SC. Filed August 29, 2005 SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS KENT, SC. Filed August 29, 2005 SUPERIOR COURT DELIGHT WEST : : VS. : K.C. 2003-0175 : HILL-ROM COMPANY, INC., Alias, : and/or COLUMBUS MCKINNON : CORPORATION,
More informationTitle 28-A: LIQUORS. Chapter 100: MAINE LIQUOR LIABILITY ACT. Table of Contents Part 8. LIQUOR LIABILITY...
Title 28-A: LIQUORS Chapter 100: MAINE LIQUOR LIABILITY ACT Table of Contents Part 8. LIQUOR LIABILITY... Section 2501. SHORT TITLE... 3 Section 2502. PURPOSES... 3 Section 2503. DEFINITIONS... 3 Section
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
More informationINFORMATION BULLETIN
INFORMATION BULLETIN #18 THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION I. INTRODUCTION When a union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit of employees, it normally negotiates a collective agreement with
More informationDRAFT OMBUDSMAN ACT FOR THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
TABLED DOCUMENT 322-17(5) TABLED ON OCTOBER 1, 2015 DRAFT OMBUDSMAN ACT FOR THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES LEGEND 1. This Draft Act was prepared based on similar legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions
More informationTHE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ALBERTA. AB, for executive director of the Real Estate Council of Alberta Michael Eurchuk, in person
Case: 006466 THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ALBERTA Process: A Hearing under Part 3 of the Real Estate Act Industry Member: Michael Eurchuk Hearing Panel: Appearances: Bobbi Dawson (Chair Gordon Reekie David
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Bahcheli v. Yorkton Securities Inc., 2012 ABCA 166 Date: 20120531 Docket: 1101-0136-AC Registry: Calgary Between: Tumer Salih Bahcheli Appellant (Plaintiff)
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 01 S SENATE BILL Commerce Committee Substitute Adopted //1 Judiciary I Committee Substitute Adopted //1 Fourth Edition Engrossed //1 House Committee Substitute
More informationSECURITY AND RELATED ACTIVITIES (CONTROL) ACT 1996
WESTERN AUSTRALIA SECURITY AND RELATED ACTIVITIES (CONTROL) ACT 1996 (No. 27 of 1996) ARRANGEMENT Page PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1. Short title 2 2. Commencement 2 3. Interpretation 2 4. Meaning of employment
More informationSocial Workers Act CHAPTER 12 OF THE ACTS OF as amended by. 2001, c. 19; 2005, c. 60; 2012, c. 48, s. 40; 2015, c. 52
Social Workers Act CHAPTER 12 OF THE ACTS OF 1993 as amended by 2001, c. 19; 2005, c. 60; 2012, c. 48, s. 40; 2015, c. 52 2016 Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Nova Scotia Published by
More informationOMBUDSMAN BILL, 2017
Arrangement of Sections Section PART I - PRELIMINARY 3 1. Short title...3 2. Interpretation...3 3. Application of Act...4 PART II OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN 5 ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
More informationRE: The Board s refusal to allow public access to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Hearings
Direct Line: 604-630-9928 Email: Laura@bccla.org BY EMAIL January 20, 2016 Peter Watson, Chair National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8 RE: The Board s refusal to allow public
More informationSupreme Court reaffirms low threshold for jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement cases
Supreme Court reaffirms low threshold for jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement cases Ted Brook Litigation Conflict of Laws Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Enforcement and Recognition Service Ex Juris
More informationREGISTRANT AGREEMENT Version 1.5
REGISTRANT AGREEMENT Version 1.5 This agreement (the Agreement ) is between you (the Registrant ) and Canadian Internet Registration Authority ( CIRA ). RECITALS A. CIRA has approved the application of
More informationA summary of Injurious Affection
A summary of Injurious Affection Where no land of the claimant is expropriated By Devesh Gupta 30 March 2011 For the Ontario Expropriation Association Introduction The Ontario Expropriations Act 1 ( OEA
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CITATION: Movati Athletic (Group Inc. v. Bergeron, 2018 ONSC 7258 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-2411 DATE: 20181206 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND
More informationFinancial and Consumer Services Commission, Pierre Emond and Armel Drapeau, REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTIONS
Citation: New Brunswick (Financial and Consumer Services Commission) v. Pierre Emond and Armel Drapeau, 2016 NBFCST 8 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK FINANCIAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF
More informationCITY/COUNTY-SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE & MANAGER TRAINING, COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Per Section 8.18.010 County Health Department Designated to Enforce Health Ordinance of the City of Sand Springs: The Tulsa City-County Health Department shall promulgate the following rules and regulations
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2015-34 November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL Case File Number F6898 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel, 2015 ONCA 205 DATE: 20150326 DOCKET: C59338 and C59339 Laskin, Simmons and Watt JJ.A. Intact Insurance Company and Yaroslava
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CHRIS AVENIR. and RYERSON UNIVERSITY STATEMENT OF CLAIM
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No. BETWEEN: (Court Seal) CHRIS AVENIR Plaintiff and RYERSON UNIVERSITY Defendant Proceedings under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 TO THE DEFENDANT(S) STATEMENT
More information2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More informationIndexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Tulloch, JJ.A. May 22, 2014.
Meredith Boucher (plaintiff/respondent) v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Jason Pinnock (defendants/appellants) (C56243; C56262; 2014 ONCA 419) Indexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court
More informationOrder F16-25 BC SECURITIES COMMISSION. Elizabeth Barker Senior Adjudicator. May 17, 2016
Order F16-25 BC SECURITIES COMMISSION Elizabeth Barker Senior Adjudicator May 17, 2016 CanLII Cite: 2016 BCIPC 27 Quicklaw Cite: [2016] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 27 Summary: The applicant requested copies of his
More informationDISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS Indexed as: Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers v Derrick Lawlor, 2018 ONCSWSSW 11 Decision
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF
More informationCOURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-344028 DATE: 20091218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK INC. (Defendant) Justice Stinson COUNSEL: Kevin D. Sherkin,
More informationHealth Care Directives
Wills and Estates Section 3 Contents Introduction...WE-3-1 Background...WE-3-2 (Living Wills)...WE-3-2 Who Can Make a Health Care Directive...WE-3-4 Types of Directives...WE-3-4 Construction of a Health
More informationMEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL From: Lawrence Rubin Date: March 23, 2018 Subject: Professional Standards (Criminal) Committee Standard No. 3: Defence Obligations Regarding Disclosure FOR: APPROVAL INTRODUCTION
More informationAppellant. * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. which dismissed her complaint against PennyMac Corporation and Gwendolyn
2019 PA Super 7 PATRICIA GRAY, Appellant v. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNYMAC CORP AND GWENDOLYN L. : JACKSON, Appellees No. 1272 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered April 5, 2018 in the
More informationCAMBODIA S DRAFT LAW ON UNIONS OF ENTERPRISES. Legal Analysis
CAMBODIA S DRAFT LAW ON UNIONS OF ENTERPRISES Legal Analysis September 2014 I. Introduction and Background The government has once again decided to push forward with a flawed Law on Unions of Enterprises
More informationMEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
NUTS&BOLTS BY GILLIAN MAYS MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Introduction The 10-day notice periods prescribed by the Municipal Act, 20011 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006,2 have been judicially referred to
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And The Council of the Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 1665 The Council of the Haida Nation and Peter Lantin, suing on his own behalf
More informationTHE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer
TAB 1 THE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer The Latest on Damages for Continuing Nuisance Bryan Buttigieg, C.S. Miller Thomson LLP October 20, 2016 Six-Minute Environmental Lawyer 2016 The Law Society of
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
2003 ONWSIAT 1955 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 234/03 [1] This right to sue application was heard in London on February 4, 2003, by Vice-Chair M. Kenny. THE RIGHT TO SUE
More informationOrder F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. January 7, 2010
Order F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator January 7, 2010 Quicklaw Cite: [2010] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 1 CanLII Cite: 2010 BCIPC 1 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2010/orderf10-01.pdf
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c.6, Sched. B;
IN THE MATTER of the Society of Industrial and Cost Accountants of Ontario Act, 1941, Statutes of Ontario 1941, c.77; as amended by Statutes of Ontario 1967, c.129; Statutes of Ontario 1971, c.126; Statutes
More informationOrder F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015
Order F15-12 Ministry of Justice Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator March 18, 2015 CanLII Cite: 2015 BCIPC 12 Quicklaw Cite: [2015] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 12 Summary: The applicant requested records from the Ministry
More informationQUICKPOLE.CA TERMS OF SERVICE. Last Modified On: July 12 th, 2018
1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS: QUICKPOLE.CA TERMS OF SERVICE Last Modified On: July 12 th, 2018 1.1 Introduction. Welcome to our website's Terms and Conditions ("Agreement"). The provisions of this Agreement
More informationLIMITATION PERIODS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS: LAASCH V. TURENNE
LIMITATION PERIODS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 187 LIMITATION PERIODS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS: LAASCH V. TURENNE NICHOLAS RAFFERTY * I. FACTS Laasch v. Turenne 1 raised important
More informationThe Medical Profession Act, 1981
1 MEDICAL PROFESSION, 1981 c M-10.1 The Medical Profession Act, 1981 being Chapter M-10.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1980-81 (consult Tables of Saskatchewan Statutes for effective dates) as amended
More informationOrder F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Celia Francis Adjudicator. May 11, 2017
Order F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Celia Francis Adjudicator May 11, 2017 CanLII Cite: 2017 BCIPC 31 Quicklaw Cite: [2017] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 31 Summary: An applicant requested access to records
More informationSECURITY SERVICES AND INVESTIGATORS ACT
Province of Alberta Statutes of Alberta, Current as of January 1, 2017 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 7 th Floor, Park Plaza 10611-98 Avenue Edmonton,
More information2013 Bill 44. First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 44 NOTARIES AND COMMISSIONERS ACT MS OLESEN
2013 Bill 44 First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 44 NOTARIES AND COMMISSIONERS ACT MS OLESEN First Reading.......................................................
More informationCITATION: Stephanie Ozorio v. Canadian Hearing Society, 2016 ONSC 5440 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CITATION: Stephanie Ozorio v. Canadian Hearing Society, 2016 ONSC 5440 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-542335 DATE: 20160830 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: STEPHANIE OZORIO and Plaintiff/Moving Party
More informationI. ZNAMENSKY SELEKCIONNO-GIBRIDNY CENTER LLC V.
(Press control and right arrow for the same effect) (Press control and left arrow for the same effect) znamensky X Français English Home > Ontario > Superior Court of Justice > 2009 CanLII 51197
More informationJAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures
JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures Effective September 1, 2016 JAMS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION RULES JAMS International and JAMS provide arbitration and mediation services from Resolution
More informationOrder COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Order 02-35 COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner July 16, 2002 Quicklaw Cite: [2002] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 35 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/order02-35.pdf
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE POLICE SERVICES ACT. Christopher Shaw. and. Windsor Police Association
Ontario Police Arbitration Commission Date: June 2, 2014 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE POLICE SERVICES ACT Christopher Shaw and Windsor Police Association BEFORE: Ian R. Mackenzie, Arbitrator
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F January 12, 2017 ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES. Case File Number F8441
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2017-01 January 12, 2017 ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES Case File Number F8441 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: Pursuant to the Freedom of
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4621 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More informationThe Registered Music Teachers Act, 2002
Consolidated to August 31, 2010 1 REGISTERED MUSIC TEACHERS, 2002 c. R-11.1 The Registered Music Teachers Act, 2002 being Chapter R-11.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2002 (effective August 1, 2004);
More informationTHE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF SAANICH BYLAW NO TO REGULATE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF SAANICH BYLAW NO. 9321 TO REGULATE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES The Council of the Corporation of the District of Saanich enacts as follows:
More informationIllinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL IDC Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 3 ( ) Medical Malpractice
Medical Malpractice By: Edward J. Aucoin, Jr. Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered Chicago Illinois Supreme Court s Decision in York v. Rush a Mixed Blessing? My favorite adage has always been be careful what
More informationISSUE NO. 18 JULY 2008 FOR MORE INFORMATION TRIBUNALS HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONS
FOR MORE INFORMATION This newsletter is published by Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, a law firm practising in the field of professional regulation. For more information, contact: Lisa S. Braverman Steinecke
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96000 PROVIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, Respondent. PARIENTE, J. [May 24, 2001] REVISED OPINION We have for review a decision of
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) Defendant ) ) ) ) HEARD: September 24, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-333934CP DATE: 20091016 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 405341 ONTARIO LIMITED Plaintiff - and - MIDAS CANADA INC. Defendant Allan Dick, David Sterns and Sam Hall
More informationDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration. Franklyn Seabrooks, M.D. Decision and Order
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/30/2014 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2014-17893, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement
More information