Bernard C. LeBlanc

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.

The College of Veterinarians appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee excluding evidence against a veterinarian accused of possessing child pornography.

The evidence was obtained by police during a criminal investigation that was later withdrawn due to a conceded s. 8 Charter breach.

The Discipline Committee excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, relying on a case (Viscomi) to find the police search warrant application was materially misleading.

The Divisional Court held that the Committee's reliance on Viscomi was wrong in law, rendering its s. 24(2) Grant analysis unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant, a veterinarian, appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct related to a corrective cherry eye surgery on a dog, and the subsequent penalty and costs decisions.

The appellant raised several procedural and substantive grounds, including reasonable apprehension of bias, procedural fairness at the investigatory stage, and the standard of proof.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the procedural complaints and affording deference to the Tribunal's findings on evidence, penalty, and costs.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent in the reduced amount of $6,000.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Revoke the appellant's registration as a Class 1 Transfer Service under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The allegations included unethical conduct regarding an infant cremation, regulatory breaches concerning consumer contracts and price lists, and misleading the Registrar about the day-to-day management of the business.

The Tribunal found that the appellant mishandled the infant's remains by using a repurposed cardboard shipping box instead of a proper casket, failed to comply with disclosure and price list regulations, and operated with an unlicensed day-to-day manager.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's licence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians, which revoked his license to practice veterinary medicine and ordered him to pay costs of $160,000 for unprofessional conduct.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including missing transcripts, failure to disclose documents held by a third party, and alleged bias of an expert witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's decision reasonable and noting that the appellant failed to bring a proper motion for third-party disclosure and consented to the expert's qualification.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

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.

The applicant College sought an order enjoining the respondent from providing anesthesia-free dog teeth cleaning services, arguing it constituted the unlicensed practice of veterinary medicine.

The court found that the cosmetic cleaning of dog teeth without anesthesia did not constitute the practice of veterinary dentistry.

However, the court concluded that the respondent's website and advertising held her out as providing veterinary services by implying health benefits and an ability to advise on oral care.

The court granted an injunction prohibiting the respondent from holding herself out as capable of diagnosing or treating canine oral health conditions.

Dr. Khawar Hanif appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his treatment of a cat and a dog.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the dog, finding the panel's conclusion that Dr. Hanif misdiagnosed the dog with renal failure was reasonable.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the cat, finding the panel made serious errors in assessing credibility and unreasonably concluded that Dr. Hanif had struck the cat.

The findings of guilt regarding the cat were set aside, and the issues of penalty and costs were remitted to the Discipline Committee for reconsideration.

The appellant veterinarian appealed findings of professional misconduct, penalty, and costs made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario.

The Committee found the appellant guilty of obstructing an investigation, suppressing evidence, and having criminal convictions for assault.

On appeal, the appellant argued procedural unfairness due to language barriers and lack of a witness list, and challenged the reasonableness of the credibility findings, penalty, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the Committee's decisions on misconduct, the four-month suspension, practice restrictions, and costs were reasonable.

The appellant, an audiologist with a doctorate degree, appealed a discipline panel's finding of professional misconduct for using the title 'Doctor' in her clinical practice, contrary to s. 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

She argued that the prohibition violated her freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and raised several jurisdictional challenges against the College.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was bound by Supreme Court precedent finding no s. 2(b) violation for similar professional title restrictions.

Alternatively, the Court found that any infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit to prevent public confusion.

The Court also dismissed all jurisdictional arguments, finding the tribunal's decisions on procedure, penalty, and costs to be reasonable.

The moving party, a veterinarian, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario, which found him guilty of professional misconduct based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

He argued that he did not enter into the settlement agreement voluntarily due to stress and duress from his former counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party did not form an intention to appeal within the relevant period, his explanation for the delay was unreasonable, and the appeal lacked merit as there was no medical evidence to support his claim of duress.