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 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 College of Veterinarians of Ontario sought costs after partially succeeding in an application against Birgit Johnston and Cutting Edge K9 Oral Hygiene.

The College had obtained a declaration and injunctive relief prohibiting the respondents from holding themselves out as practitioners of veterinary medicine, though they were not found to be practicing veterinary medicine.

The College requested $15,000 in costs, significantly less than their actual incurred fees of over $75,000.

The self-represented respondents sought costs, but failed to meet the two-part test for self-represented parties to claim costs, specifically lacking evidence of opportunity cost.

The court awarded the College $15,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 90 days, considering partial success and proportionality.

Following the dismissal of a civil action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the defendant’s bill of costs, the conduct of the plaintiff during the litigation, and the principles governing costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff challenged the fairness of the earlier decision and disputed the hours billed by defence counsel.

The court held that costs generally follow the event and that the rates and hours claimed were largely reasonable.

Costs of the action, including the summary judgment motion, were fixed at an all-inclusive amount of $30,000.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action seeking damages arising from the alleged mishandling of his application for a professional engineering licence by the provincial regulator.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The court held that the regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to an individual applicant in the circumstances, given the statutory framework and the public‑interest mandate of the regulatory body.

The governing statute also contained a good‑faith immunity provision indicating legislative intent not to impose such liability.

In any event, the record disclosed no evidence of bad faith in the processing of the licensing application.