3 total
Costs of $9,000 awarded to the Law Society following the dismissal of the appellant's license revocation appeal.
Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal and stay motion regarding the revocation of his license, the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division determined the appropriate quantum of costs.
The Law Society sought $12,000, which was below the typical range of $15,000 to $30,000 for an appeal.
The appellant requested costs be fixed at $6,000 payable over four years, citing financial hardship but providing no evidence.
The Tribunal considered the unique nature of the appeal, which provided an opportunity to clarify the Law Society's role in assessing applications following the compromised online licensing examination.
The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $9,000 in costs, payable in two installments.
Application for CPA membership denied due to repeated dishonesty and poor professional judgment.
The applicant applied for admission to membership with the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario).
This was his second good character hearing, having been denied membership in 2021 due to a prior criminal finding of guilt for assault causing bodily harm and academic dishonesty.
In his 2023 application, the applicant failed to disclose his criminal record and academic misconduct.
Furthermore, an investigation revealed he was listed as a CPA on a company website and was acting as a director for an unregistered accounting firm operated by his uncle, a convicted fraudster.
The Admission and Registration Committee found that the applicant repeatedly concealed information and exercised poor professional judgment.
The Committee concluded the applicant failed to establish he was of good character on a balance of probabilities and denied his application, but permitted him to re-apply in two years.
Pharmacist's appeal of sexual abuse finding dismissed; dispensing coworker's prescription created a pharmacist-patient relationship.
The appellant pharmacist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of sexually abusing a patient who was also his coworker.
The appellant argued the Committee erred in finding the coworker was a 'patient' under the Patient Criteria Regulation, asserting that dispensing a prescription did not constitute a 'direct interaction'.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the determination of whether a patient relationship existed was a question of mixed fact and law subject to deference.
The Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's conclusion that dispensing a prescription and conducting a clinical verification constituted a direct interaction creating a pharmacist-patient relationship.
