Gerhard A. Pyper

The applicant, a veterinarian, filed a human rights application alleging that the College of Veterinarians of Ontario discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed during ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant alleged selective prosecution and that the College's Discipline Committee wrongfully prevented him from raising discrimination issues.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the Discipline Committee's evidentiary and procedural rulings were protected by adjudicative immunity and the doctrine of collateral attack.

Furthermore, the applicant's allegations regarding the Complaints Committee's referral had already been dismissed in a previous application, making re-litigation an abuse of process.

Following the dismissal of motions seeking injunctions preventing a retailer from using or disposing of pharmacy and patient information from pharmacies operating in its stores, the court addressed costs.

The moving parties sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, no costs due to alleged improper conduct, public interest considerations, and the asserted novelty of privacy-related issues.

The court rejected those submissions and held that the successful party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Although the respondent claimed over $113,000, the court reduced the amount due to excessive staffing, high hourly rates, and unwarranted disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable jointly and severally by all unsuccessful parties.

Licensed pharmacists operating pharmacies within retail stores sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the retailer from selling or transferring pharmacy records to third‑party pharmacy operators following the closure of the stores.

The moving parties argued the records belonged to them under the license agreements and that privacy legislation governing personal health information prevented the transfer.

The court held that the agreements clearly provided that customer records belonged to the retailer, though it acknowledged a low‑threshold serious issue regarding the interaction of contractual terms with health‑information legislation.

The court found no irreparable harm because any business losses could be compensated in damages and patient privacy would not be breached under the statutory regime permitting transfer of records to a successor health information custodian.

The balance of convenience favoured allowing the transfers to ensure continuity of patient care.

The motions for injunction were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the adjudicator misinterpreted facts and raised a Charter argument.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to present new facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, nor did he establish factors outweighing the public interest in finality.