Del Frate

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, and revoking his license.

The Divisional Court upheld findings that he removed patients' clothing without warning and breached a chaperone order.

However, the Court quashed the finding of sexual abuse regarding Patient B due to a flawed credibility assessment and a reversal of the burden of proof.

The Court also quashed a finding of professional misconduct regarding abdominal contact with two other patients because it was an unpleaded allegation.

Finally, the Court held that the mandatory revocation provisions of the Protecting Patients Act, 2017 did not apply retrospectively.

The penalty was substituted with a suspension for the period already served.

The appellant physician appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of sexual abuse and unprofessional conduct regarding two patients and ordered the revocation of his licence, as well as requiring him to post security for patient counselling.

The Divisional Court upheld the liability findings, concluding the Committee's credibility assessments were reasonable.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on penalty, finding that the Committee erred in principle by failing to balance all sentencing criteria, ignoring proportionality, and incorrectly applying retrospective legislation.

The penalty of revocation was set aside and remitted to the Committee.

The order for security for counselling was varied to apply only to the patient who demonstrated a need for it.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming a compliance order that required the applicant to pay overtime to employees at its centralized sweet corn processing facility.

The Board had found that the facility was not a 'farm' and the work was not 'directly related to primary production' under the farm worker exemption in Regulation 285/01.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision was unreasonable because it disregarded uncontradicted expert and operational evidence, adopted an arbitrary interpretation that created absurd results, and failed to properly balance the protective purpose of the exemption.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the court declared that the farm worker exemption applied to the employees.