Bernard C. LeBlanc

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 member, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for inappropriately accessing the personal health information of patients not under her care at the Ottawa Hospital.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member committed professional misconduct by contravening the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 and hospital policy.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a $1,000 fine, and publication of the decision with the member's name.

The member, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for inappropriately accessing the personal health information of patients not under her care at the Ottawa Hospital.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member committed professional misconduct by contravening the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 and hospital policy.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a $1,000 fine, and publication of the decision with the member's name.

The member, a speech-language pathologist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to maintain appropriate client records and for using an unregistered name in her practice.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the member's employer discovered that many client records were missing, incomplete, or kept at her home.

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

The Discipline Committee found that the member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension, the completion of a 1,000-word paper on record-keeping, and $500 in costs.

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.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, the court determined the costs to be awarded to the respondents.

The respondents sought $36,915 in fees, which the court found to be substantially beyond what might reasonably be anticipated.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought an application regarding an ongoing tribunal hearing involving the Sleep Disorders Centres.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that no significant harm or breach of natural justice would occur by refusing to decide the issue, especially since the report in question had already been disclosed.

The Court concluded that all related issues should be determined by the tribunal based on a full and complete record.

The appellants alleged they suffered harm due to mislabelled medication and sued the pharmacy.

After the expiry of the one-year limitation period under the Regulated Health Professions Act, they moved to add the dispensing pharmacist and the numbered company operating the pharmacy as defendants.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal regarding the pharmacist, finding no evidence of due diligence to discover her identity.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the numbered company, holding that it was not a 'health profession corporation' under the Act and was therefore subject to the general six-year limitation period.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after initiating magazine subscriptions in the name of a complainant whose previous complaint against the member had been dismissed.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty.

During the penalty phase, the panel denied a request for standing from the complainant's counsel.

The panel also rejected a joint submission on penalty that proposed withholding the member's name from the public register, finding that publication was necessary for general deterrence and public accountability.

The member was reprimanded, ordered to pay $1,500 in costs, and her name was published.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy-Naturopathy.

The applicant also brought a motion for an interim stay, while the respondent Board brought a cross-motion to quash the application.

The Board conceded that the Complaints Committee's proceedings were void ab initio because the Board lacked jurisdiction to delegate its disciplinary powers to a committee.

The court agreed, finding the proceedings and any resulting agreements void.

Consequently, the court allowed the cross-motion and dismissed the application for judicial review as an academic exercise.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the appointment of an investigator by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario to examine their practices, and a stay of the investigations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting the well-established rule against piecemeal judicial review of administrative action absent exceptional circumstances.

The court held that the administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention.