Bernard C. LeBlanc

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his negligence action against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (APEO) regarding the processing of his engineering license application.

The motion judge found that the APEO owed no duty of care, or alternatively, was protected by statutory immunity under s. 45(1) of the Professional Engineers Act absent bad faith.

The Court of Appeal agreed that there was no evidence of bad faith, malice, or abuse of power by the APEO.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Canadian Doctors of Audiology Association brought a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning a finding of professional misconduct against an audiologist for using the title 'Doctor'.

The proposed intervenor sought to support the appellant's constitutional challenge to s. 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the application was brought very late, the proposed argument substantially echoed the appellant's argument, and the intervention would not make a useful and distinct contribution sufficient to justify disrupting the scheduled appeal.

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario removing his counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from the counsel's former representation of a co-respondent.

The College brought a motion to quash the application as premature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the deprivation of counsel of choice raised real issues of fairness and natural justice.

On the merits, the Court allowed the application for judicial review and set aside the College's order, concluding there was no evidence of a realistic risk of a conflict of interest or misuse of confidential information.

The Registrar of the Board of Funeral Services brought a motion to strike the appellants' notices of appeal regarding the revocation of their funeral home licences.

At the motion, the appellants withdrew their appeals.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the licence revocations and ordered the release of $2,500 held in trust back to the appellants.

The Tribunal denied the Registrar's request for costs, finding that the appellants' failure to comply with procedural orders did not result in lost hearing time as required by Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Appellant funeral home appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke and immediately suspend its licence.

The suspension was based on allegations that the Appellant breached a previous interim order by denying a Tribunal-appointed monitor access to books and records, and by secretly selling and closing an affiliated funeral home location without notifying the monitor, the regulator, or senior staff.

The Tribunal found the principal's conduct lacked honesty and integrity, and that the secret closure put the public at risk.

The Tribunal concluded it was in the public interest to maintain the licence suspension pending the full hearing.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the Appellant funeral home's registration under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 due to financial difficulties, unpaid suppliers, and failure to maintain and produce required books and records.

The Appellant, under new ownership, struggled with regulatory compliance and was placed on cash-on-delivery terms by suppliers, affecting its ability to fulfill pre-paid funeral contracts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the Appellant was in breach of its regulatory obligations, revocation was too extreme a penalty given the lack of intentional mishandling of trust funds and the new owner's inexperience.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and instead imposed strict conditions on the Appellant's licence, including the requirement to maintain a licensed managing funeral director and provide a repayment plan for outstanding debts.

The appellants brought a motion to vary a Consent Order that had drastically reduced the managerial involvement of their principals following an Immediate Suspension Order of their licences.

The appellants sought to allow the principals to perform clerical work, participate in management decision-making, and assist in funeral services.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, allowing limited clerical work and management decision-making in the presence of a Monitor, but dismissed the request to allow the principals to engage in services requiring a licence, such as assisting in funeral services and handling deceased persons.

The appellants also consented to pay $25,000 in outstanding costs to the Board.

The appellant, a chiropodist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he breached professional standards by attempting to induce teachers to purchase orthotics during presentations.

He challenged the panel's findings, its refusal to grant an adjournment to retain a new expert, and the penalty imposed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the panel's decision reasonable and the refusal of an adjournment within its discretion.

The court allowed the appeal in part regarding the penalty, imposing a $5,000 cap on the costs of supervision, but otherwise upheld the $38,000 costs order and awarded $15,000 in appeal costs to the respondent.

During a pre-hearing regarding the interim suspension and proposed revocation of a funeral home's licence, journalists from the Toronto Star brought a motion seeking access to the pre-hearing and related documents.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the release of the pleadings to the media.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion to open the pre-hearing to the public, finding that doing so would inhibit settlement discussions and delay the expedited process required for an interim suspension case.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the registration of the respondent as a motor vehicle salesperson with conditions.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse registration due to the respondent's failure to supervise employees who committed extensive fraud, resulting in unpaid liens, taxes, and consumer complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that while the respondent was guilty of lax supervision, he was a victim of fraud and his personal honesty and integrity were not stained.

The Court also admitted fresh evidence of the respondent's guilty pleas to corporate tax offences but held it would not have changed the Tribunal's decision.

The Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, moved for leave to adduce fresh evidence on an appeal from a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal had ordered the Registrar to register the respondent as a salesperson.

The fresh evidence consisted of court records and Canada Revenue Agency documents concerning tax proceedings and charges against the respondent for failing to file corporate returns.

The Divisional Court applied the Palmer test and admitted the fresh evidence, finding it was credible, relevant to a potentially decisive issue, and could reasonably have affected the result.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a costs order of $12,500 awarded to the defendants after the plaintiffs discontinued their action.

The plaintiffs argued that the parties had agreed to a discontinuance without costs and that the motion judge failed to address this agreement in his reasons.

The Divisional Court found that the evidence did not support the existence of such an agreement, as the defendants' offer was conditional on a similar agreement with another defendant, which was never reached.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the appellant not to carry out a proposal to suspend the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership and its salespersons.

The appellant argued the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable given the dealership's failure to provide adequate financial records and a salesperson's breach of registration conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the correct legal principles and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence, including expert accounting testimony that the dealership could reasonably be expected to carry on business in a financially responsible manner.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed two decisions of its Discipline Committee acquitting a veterinarian of various allegations of professional misconduct, including animal abuse, misdiagnosis, and inappropriate comments.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee's reasons were woefully inadequate, failed to address material evidence, contained inconsistent findings, and were ultimately unreasonable.

The matters were remitted to a differently constituted panel for new hearings.

The Member, an audiologist, faced allegations of professional misconduct including inadequate record keeping, failure to refer patients for medical evaluation, improper prescription of hearing aids, incomplete assessments, and misleading a College investigator.

The Member admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission as to Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension (two months suspended upon completion of conditions), monitoring, and costs of $2,000.

The Member, an audiologist, faced allegations of professional misconduct including inadequate record keeping, failure to refer patients for medical evaluation, improper prescription of hearing aids, incomplete assessments, and misleading a College investigator.

The Member admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission as to Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension (two months suspended upon completion of conditions), monitoring, and costs of $2,000.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that granted Dr. Deemar's application for judicial review of pre-hearing rulings by the College's Discipline Committee.

The Discipline Committee had excluded the expert evidence of Dr. Leslie, a former Registrar of the College dismissed in acrimonious circumstances, and Dr. Henry, whose report was deemed irrelevant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee correctly excluded the expert reports due to lack of independence and relevance, and that the Complaints Committee had conducted an adequate investigation.

The Divisional Court's order was set aside and the judicial review application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario's Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court found that the College denied the applicant procedural fairness and due process by failing to properly investigate the complaint and by wrongly striking the reports of her chosen experts.

The application was granted, the rulings were quashed, and the matter was remitted to a newly composed Discipline Committee.