A. Pinto

The applicant sought judicial review of a tribunal appeal division decision upholding a finding that the respondent was of good character and could be licensed to practice law, subject to a condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors.

The respondent had committed historical acts of sexual abuse against minors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal reasonably applied the Armstrong factors to assess good character, adequately considered the public interest and the protection of children, and reasonably imposed the licensing condition based on the respondent's voluntary undertaking.

The court also continued the anonymization order protecting the respondent's identity to safeguard the privacy interests of his children.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by a tribunal hearing division that refused to dismiss a professional conduct application against her.

The conduct application stemmed from allegations of cheating on licensing examinations.

During case management, the respondent requested the application be dismissed as premature.

The court dismissed the judicial review application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court emphasized the longstanding principle against fragmenting administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present.