Giuseppe Jr. Campisi

The appellant veterinarian appealed three separate decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing penalties including suspensions and costs.

The appellant argued that the proceedings should have been dismissed for abuse of process due to delay and procedural irregularities, that the College's expert evidence should not have been admitted, and that the penalties were clearly unfit.

The Divisional Court dismissed all three appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual findings and no errors of law.

The Court held that the statutory referral process was properly followed, the delay was not inordinate and caused no prejudice, the expert evidence was properly admitted, and the penalties and costs were within the Committee's reasonable discretion.

The plaintiff purchased a used 2006 BMW from the defendant dealer.

Shortly after purchase, the vehicle experienced significant mechanical issues, including excessive oil consumption and computer malfunctions.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, claiming the vehicle was not of merchantable quality.

The court found that because the 'as is' box on the purchase agreement was not checked, the implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act applied.

The court held the vehicle was not reasonably fit for its purpose and awarded the plaintiff $11,606.21 for repair estimates and inspection costs, dismissing claims for rental car and insurance expenses.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced nine separate actions against 30 defendants, including doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, and academic advisors, alleging medical malpractice and negligence.

The plaintiff, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia but refused to accept the diagnosis or take medication, claimed the defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat his physical injuries and ignored his beliefs about synchronicities.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the actions.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motions, finding no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff failed to provide any expert evidence to support his claims, while the defendants provided uncontradicted expert evidence that they met or exceeded the standard of care.

The court also found the actions to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $1,500 to each defendant.