Bernard C. LeBlanc

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a member regarding his care of a Great Dane.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct by failing to reassess the dog after diagnostic testing, failing to adequately monitor and treat the dog, failing to communicate with the owner, and failing to maintain proper records.

Following the merits decision, the member retained counsel and entered into a joint submission on penalty, predicated on his undertaking to permanently resign from the profession.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, finding it protected the public interest and obviated the need for further penalty orders.

The registrant, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for improperly accessing the medical records of over 100 patients and committing time theft by claiming time she did not work.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it did not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension, a reprimand, terms and conditions including coaching and monitoring, repayment of the stolen time to the hospital, and $2,000 in costs.

The College alleged that the registrant, a speech-language pathologist, committed professional misconduct by conducting swallowing assessments by telephone rather than in person during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, failing to maintain proper records, and failing to cooperate with investigations.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the registrant exercised reasonable clinical judgment in opting for telephone assessments given the pandemic risks and facility constraints, dismissing that allegation.

However, the Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain proper clinical records, failing to respond to inquiries from her employer, and failing to cooperate with the College's investigation.

The Discipline Committee determined the penalty and costs following a finding that the registrant committed professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with an investigation and retweeting a transphobic statement.

Balancing the registrant's Charter right to freedom of expression with the College's statutory objectives, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and remedial education.

The Committee declined to revoke the registrant's certificate, finding the suspension proportionate.

The Committee also ordered the registrant to pay $25,157.80 in costs, representing two-thirds of the College's actual costs.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty and costs hearing following a finding of professional misconduct against an audiologist who failed to communicate with a client, resulting in delayed treatment.

The registrant did not attend the hearing.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a nine-month suspension (with three months suspended if remediation is completed within six months), and terms on her certificate.

The Committee also ordered the registrant to pay $43,716.73 in costs, representing two-thirds of the College's actual costs, noting her ungovernability and use of OPCA tactics.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario alleged that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with an investigation and by making an inappropriate and offensive social media post.

The Discipline Committee found that the registrant refused entry to a College investigator and ignored repeated requests for an interview, violating her mandatory duties under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Furthermore, the Committee found that the registrant's retweet of a transphobic post was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

In reaching this conclusion, the Committee balanced the registrant's Charter right to freedom of expression against the College's statutory objective of maintaining the integrity of the profession, finding the restriction proportionate.

The allegations of professional misconduct were proven.

The registrant brought a motion to remove the College's counsel, arguing that counsel acting as prosecutor before the Discipline Committee must not have advised the Registrar, investigators, or the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) at earlier stages.

The registrant also alleged inappropriate conduct by counsel in previous litigation.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding no legal principle preventing prosecuting counsel from advising the College at earlier stages.

The Committee noted that the Divisional Court had previously rejected similar arguments from the registrant and found no evidence of impropriety by counsel.

The registrant brought a motion to remove the College's counsel, arguing that counsel acting as prosecutor before the Discipline Committee must not have advised the Registrar, investigators, or the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) at earlier stages.

The registrant also alleged inappropriate conduct by counsel in previous litigation.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding no legal principle preventing prosecuting counsel from advising the College at earlier stages.

The Committee noted that the Divisional Court had previously rejected similar arguments from the registrant and found no evidence of impropriety by counsel.

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 registrant, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to comply with a previous order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring practice monitoring.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it did not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The registrant was reprimanded, suspended for one month, subjected to permanent practice restrictions regarding dysphagia intervention and acute care settings, and ordered to pay $2,000 in costs.

The registrant, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to comply with a previous order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring practice monitoring.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it did not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The registrant was reprimanded, suspended for one month, subjected to permanent practice restrictions regarding dysphagia intervention and acute care settings, and ordered to pay $2,000 in costs.

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.