Bernard C. LeBlanc

Dr. Covant, a veterinarian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a finding of professional misconduct by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario's Discipline Committee.

The misconduct stemmed from re-selling large quantities of veterinary drugs to human pharmacies, which violated an amended regulation (s. 33(2)(d) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093) restricting such sales to "reasonably limited quantities" for "temporary shortages." Covant argued the regulation was unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad, the misconduct finding was erroneous, and the imposed penalty was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming that the regulation was not impermissibly vague or overbroad, the professional misconduct was properly established given Covant's ongoing sub-distribution enterprise, and the one-month suspension and costs award were fit and reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions by the Bereavement Authority of Ontario (BAO) directing them to return administrative fees collected from charitable donations.

The BAO conceded it lacked jurisdiction to order refunds and requested the matter be remitted to a newly appointed registrar.

The applicants argued the BAO's conduct, including media statements, raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and asked the court to decide the matter.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions and remitted the matter in its entirety to the new registrar for reconsideration, finding that the new decision-maker and the BAO's concessions warranted a fresh hearing on a complete record.

The applicant, an unlicensed cemetery owner, sought judicial review of an order by the Registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario directing it not to interfere with the interment of a deceased individual.

The applicant argued the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine interment rights and denied it procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar had the statutory authority to ensure orderly burials and incidentally determine interment rights based on reasonable evidence, without breaching procedural fairness.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee penalty decision that suspended a veterinarian's licence for eight months for professional misconduct involving workplace abuse and altering records, arguing the penalty lacked necessary enforcement provisions.

The veterinarian cross-appealed the liability findings, alleging flawed credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's factual findings and concluding the penalty imposed was not clearly unfit or unreasonable.

The Registrar appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to revoke the respondents' funeral director and establishment operator licences.

The respondent had previously pleaded guilty to stealing approximately $86,000 from a local charity to pay business debts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment that the respondent's conduct was out of character, that he had insight into his misconduct, and that public protection did not require revocation.

The appellant, Behrouz Salehi, brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a 2016 Court of Appeal decision that had dismissed his appeal.

The motion was based on newly discovered facts related to his negligence claim against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario concerning his licensing application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a motion where the underlying order was affirmed on appeal; such motions must be brought before the Superior Court.

The appellant, a dental hygienist, appealed a discipline committee decision finding she engaged in a concurrent sexual relationship with a client, which resulted in the mandatory revocation of her certificate of registration.

The appellant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair due to an inadequate investigation, uneven scrutiny of evidence, and failure to enforce a witness exclusion order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, noting the committee's credibility assessments were entitled to deference, and concluding the appellant failed to establish any palpable and overriding error.

The appellant veterinarian appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding he engaged in professional misconduct by dispensing and reselling veterinary drugs to pharmacies in large quantities, contrary to s. 33(2)(d) of the General Regulation under the Veterinarians Act.

The appellant challenged the validity of the regulation, arguing it was ultra vires, vague, overbroad, and improperly enacted without procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the regulation was validly enacted within the College's statutory authority and that the terms 'reasonably limited quantities' and 'temporary shortage' were not unconstitutionally vague.

The court upheld the finding of professional misconduct and the penalty of a one-month suspension, public reprimand, and costs, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The applicant veterinarian sought judicial review of an interim suspension order made by the Discipline Committee pending a hearing into allegations of professional misconduct involving the sexual assault of a minor.

The applicant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction to make interim suspension orders and that the decision lacked a proper evidentiary basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act reasonably provided the Committee with jurisdiction to make substantive interim orders.

The Court also held that the Committee's decision to impose the suspension was reasonable given the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's prior discipline and criminal history for similar conduct.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a finding of professional misconduct and a penalty decision by the College's Discipline Committee, which included a three-month suspension and a $135,000 costs award.

The misconduct related to the misdiagnosis and improper treatment of a dog's fractured paw.

On appeal, the appellant raised several procedural and constitutional arguments, including allegations of bias, unconstitutional by-laws, and failure to provide reasons by the Complaints Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law, and upheld the costs award as reasonable given the appellant's conduct during the proceedings.

The appellant veterinarian appealed the penalty and costs order of the Discipline Committee following a rehearing.

The Committee had ordered a one-month suspension and $65,000 in costs after the Divisional Court previously set aside some, but not all, findings of professional misconduct.

The appellant also brought several preliminary motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct, bias, and constitutional violations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the preliminary motions as being without merit or previously decided.

The Court also dismissed the appeal on penalty and costs, finding no error in principle and that the penalty was not clearly unfit.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent College in the amount of $15,000.

The appellant, whose veterinary licence was previously revoked for professional misconduct, brought motions before the College of Veterinarians seeking to set aside the revocation on grounds of fraud and fresh evidence.

The Chair of the Discipline Committee refused to convene a panel, finding the Committee lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its earlier decision.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction because there was no statutory decision to appeal, and noted that even if treated as a judicial review, the Chair's refusal was reasonable given the complete lack of evidence supporting the allegations of fraud or fresh evidence.

The moving party, a veterinarian previously found guilty of professional misconduct, brought three motions seeking reasons from the Complaints Committee, admission of fresh evidence, and a stay of penalties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions, finding it lacked jurisdiction as there was no existing proceeding.

The court also held that the issues raised were res judicata, having been previously decided by the Discipline Committee and the Divisional Court on appeal.

The motions were deemed an abuse of process and dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant Registrar appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that the Registrar failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the respondent funeral home's low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis operation posed a risk to public health and safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the onus was on the Registrar to prove the risk, not on the respondent to prove safety.

The Court found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the precautionary principle did not apply and that conditions should not be imposed on the business.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 37 to vary or set aside the Divisional Court's final costs disposition in the underlying application.

The applicant argued that the court's costs reasons did not address several of her submissions.

The court dismissed the motion without requiring a response from the respondent, finding it manifestly devoid of merit.

The court held that it had considered all submissions in its original costs decision and was now functus officio, noting that any remedy must be sought in the Court of Appeal.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a 12-month licence suspension and related conditions imposed by the Discipline Committee for professional misconduct, including false advertising and failing to follow client instructions.

The College cross-appealed the Committee's decision to allow the appellant to own a mobile veterinary practice post-suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding the penalty was supported by evidence, adequately reasoned, and not disproportionately harsh given the appellant's prior disciplinary record.

The court also found no error in the Committee's distinction between clinics and mobile services for the ownership restriction.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeals Tribunal decision setting aside a proposal to revoke the respondent's crematorium operator licence.

The respondent used a low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis process, which the Registrar argued posed a public health risk due to potential failure to destroy prions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded the Registrar failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the process created a risk to public health and safety.

The Court also found the Tribunal did not err in its application of the precautionary principle or in declining to impose further licence conditions.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the revocation of its Class 1 Transfer Service licence.

The revocation followed an incident where the appellant directed a contractor to transport human remains in an inappropriate and undignified manner.

The tribunal found that the appellant's day-to-day operations were managed by an unlicenced individual, contrary to regulations, and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tribunal's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Registrar brought a motion to stay a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal that set aside the Registrar's proposal to revoke and immediately suspend the respondent's crematorium license.

The respondent operated a low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis machine, which the Registrar argued posed a risk to public health due to uncertainty about its ability to destroy prions in the effluent.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal raised serious issues of law regarding the standard of risk assessment and the precautionary principle.

Concluding that the potential risk to public health constituted irreparable harm that outweighed the respondent's financial losses, the court granted the stay pending the disposition of the appeal.

The applicant, previously disciplined for unauthorized use of the title 'Doctor', brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside the Divisional Court's prior decision upholding her discipline.

She alleged fraud and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the College's internal procedures for referring matters to discipline.

She also sought to disqualify the College's counsel, and a third party sought leave to intervene.

The Divisional Court dismissed all motions, finding no fraud, no procedural unfairness, and that the fresh evidence would not have altered the original outcome.