John de Bruyn

The Member, a veterinarian, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for viewing pornography on a workplace computer during working hours while other staff were present.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a veterinarian.

Applying the public interest test, the Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a public reprimand, a 1.5-month suspension, practice monitoring conditions, ongoing therapy, and $5,000 in costs.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct relating to the misdiagnosis of a puppy, failure to properly record discussions with the owner, and revising medical records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and the parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member's conduct serious and incompatible with professional expectations.

The Member was reprimanded, his license was suspended for two months, and he was ordered to complete remediation and pay $5,000 in costs.

The applicants brought a complaint before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise disturbances from bird bangers operated by the respondents on their adjacent grape farm.

The Board found that the applicants established the existence of a nuisance, as the noise caused an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property.

The Board further determined that the respondents failed to prove the disturbance resulted from a normal farm practice.

Evidence showed the equipment was used maliciously, contrary to Best Management Practices, and without agricultural justification.

The Board ordered a permanent ban on the respondents' use of any acoustical bird control devices on the specified properties.

The applicants filed a complaint regarding noise disturbances from a vineyard operation owned by the respondents.

After an unsuccessful mediation, a hearing commenced before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties advised the Board that they had reached a settlement.

The Board declined to approve the specific details of the settlement but ordered the application withdrawn on consent of the parties.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of noise disturbances from propane-fired noise cannons used by the respondents to protect their grape crops from birds.

The Board found that while the noise constituted a disturbance under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, the respondents' use of the cannons was a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered specific operational restrictions, including limiting the hours of operation and the frequency of blasts, based on best practices evidence.