Dr. Umesh Jain

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) upholding the Director's proposal to refuse to renew its residential care licence.

The LAT had excluded the appellant's proposed expert evidence regarding fire safety and the standard of care for treatment foster homes, citing efficiency and lack of necessity.

The Divisional Court found that the excluded evidence was central to the case and clearly relevant, and that its exclusion amounted to a palpable and overriding error that prejudiced the appellant's ability to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed, the LAT's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different panel.

The applicant, who has ADHD, alleged that the Law School Admission Council discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability during the LSAT and by disciplining him for misconduct.

The applicant had requested extra time, a quiet room, and earplugs, but failed to provide a comprehensive achievement battery required by the respondent's guidelines before the strict deadline.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not breach the procedural duty to accommodate, as its requests for information were reasonable.

The Tribunal also found no breach of the substantive duty to accommodate, concluding that the applicant failed to reasonably cooperate in the accommodation process.

Finally, the Tribunal held that the discipline imposed for the applicant's disruptive behaviour during the test did not constitute discrimination.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for sexual and professional misconduct involving a 15-year-old vulnerable patient.

The appellant argued the penalty was unduly harsh and that the committee failed to properly weigh expert and character evidence regarding his mental disorder.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the committee's findings and the penalty of revocation were reasonably supported by the evidence, given the overwhelming aggravating factors.

The appeal was dismissed.