APPELLATE ADVOCACY & JUDICIAL REVIEWS
Brian is heavily involved in litigating unique points of law in the appellate courts, where novel issues are considered by the appellate courts and "new law" is made. Some of his reported decisions are set out below.
1. Divisional Court & Court of Appeal:
Endean v. St. Joseph's General Hospital, 2019 ONCA 181 (Court of Appeal):
Successful appeal on the issue of joint and several liability. As stated by the Court of Appeal, "the right of indemnity is not something which affects the plaintiff". A wrongdoer who seeks restitution from another wrongdoer cannot seek an apportionment of damages unless the absent wrongdoer is made a defendant. There is no onus on the plaintiff to add potentially at-fault parties. The plaintiff is only required to sue one defendant who is at least one percent liable.
Asa v University Health Network, 2016 ONSC 439 (Div. Ct.):
Judicial Review granted, with Respondent's allegations of falsification and fabrication of scientific data in published journal articles set aside, and Respondent's decision on sanctions (only) remitted for reconsideration.
This is the first decision from a Court in Canada granting Judicial Review of a Hospital's internal administration on the basis of the public importance of the issues before the Court.
In this case, the Court accepted that the effect on the public at large by the Hospital's treatment of the doctors necessitated judicial intervention.
Asa & Ezzat v. University Health Network, 2015 ONSC 5389 (Div. Ct.):
Leave granted for application for Judicial Review on the basis of alternative relief sought (with the original motion being for an urgent hearing before a single judge of the Divisional Court sitting as a Judge of the Superior Court of Justice).
Katsoulakos v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 5440 (Div. Ct.):
Successful appeal of discipline decision, with the discipline referral remitted to the regulatory body on the basis that, "the obligation is on the professional association to specify the allegations of professional misconduct with reasonable particularity, not on the member to discern from the general 'subject matter' of the circumstances what he may or may not be alleged to have done wrong."
Katsoulakos v. Assn. of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2014 CarswellOnt 7989 (Div. Ct.):
This was a motion brought by the Respondent to strike portions of the Engineer's factum that preceding the successful appeal by the Engineer of the Discipline Committee's decision against him.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Rathe, 2013 CarswellOnt 3765 (Div. Ct.)
Judicial Review of a Discipline Committee's conviction of a professional whose actions took place outside the professional's practice setting.
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2008 CarswellOnt 6073 (Court of Appeal)
Successful defence of an appeal from one of the most significant contempt orders imposed in Canadian legal history.
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2009 CarswellOnt 86 (Court of Appeal)
Successful defence of an appeal from the highest contempt fine imposed in Canadian legal history. In this case series, Brian prosecuted an optician who was dispensing eyewear without prescriptions. The result was a fine of approximately $17,000,000, imprisonment of the optician for 1 year, and house arrest of the optician's spouse for 6 months
2. Supreme Court of Canada:
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2009 CarswellOnt 3395 (S.C.C.)
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2009 CarswellOnt 3393 (S.C.C.)
Brian is heavily involved in litigating unique points of law in the appellate courts, where novel issues are considered by the appellate courts and "new law" is made. Some of his reported decisions are set out below.
1. Divisional Court & Court of Appeal:
Endean v. St. Joseph's General Hospital, 2019 ONCA 181 (Court of Appeal):
Successful appeal on the issue of joint and several liability. As stated by the Court of Appeal, "the right of indemnity is not something which affects the plaintiff". A wrongdoer who seeks restitution from another wrongdoer cannot seek an apportionment of damages unless the absent wrongdoer is made a defendant. There is no onus on the plaintiff to add potentially at-fault parties. The plaintiff is only required to sue one defendant who is at least one percent liable.
Asa v University Health Network, 2016 ONSC 439 (Div. Ct.):
Judicial Review granted, with Respondent's allegations of falsification and fabrication of scientific data in published journal articles set aside, and Respondent's decision on sanctions (only) remitted for reconsideration.
This is the first decision from a Court in Canada granting Judicial Review of a Hospital's internal administration on the basis of the public importance of the issues before the Court.
In this case, the Court accepted that the effect on the public at large by the Hospital's treatment of the doctors necessitated judicial intervention.
Asa & Ezzat v. University Health Network, 2015 ONSC 5389 (Div. Ct.):
Leave granted for application for Judicial Review on the basis of alternative relief sought (with the original motion being for an urgent hearing before a single judge of the Divisional Court sitting as a Judge of the Superior Court of Justice).
Katsoulakos v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 5440 (Div. Ct.):
Successful appeal of discipline decision, with the discipline referral remitted to the regulatory body on the basis that, "the obligation is on the professional association to specify the allegations of professional misconduct with reasonable particularity, not on the member to discern from the general 'subject matter' of the circumstances what he may or may not be alleged to have done wrong."
Katsoulakos v. Assn. of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2014 CarswellOnt 7989 (Div. Ct.):
This was a motion brought by the Respondent to strike portions of the Engineer's factum that preceding the successful appeal by the Engineer of the Discipline Committee's decision against him.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Rathe, 2013 CarswellOnt 3765 (Div. Ct.)
Judicial Review of a Discipline Committee's conviction of a professional whose actions took place outside the professional's practice setting.
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2008 CarswellOnt 6073 (Court of Appeal)
Successful defence of an appeal from one of the most significant contempt orders imposed in Canadian legal history.
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2009 CarswellOnt 86 (Court of Appeal)
Successful defence of an appeal from the highest contempt fine imposed in Canadian legal history. In this case series, Brian prosecuted an optician who was dispensing eyewear without prescriptions. The result was a fine of approximately $17,000,000, imprisonment of the optician for 1 year, and house arrest of the optician's spouse for 6 months
2. Supreme Court of Canada:
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2009 CarswellOnt 3395 (S.C.C.)
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2009 CarswellOnt 3393 (S.C.C.)