3 total
Unauthorized disclosure of sealed adoption records justified serious discipline short of revocation.
In a professional discipline hearing, the tribunal found the member guilty of professional misconduct for repeatedly accessing sealed adoption records without authorization, copying or noting their contents, and disclosing the information to an adoptee with whom she was in a personal relationship.
The tribunal held that pre-registration conduct could ground discipline where it bore on current suitability to practise and found the member's confidentiality breach, dishonesty during the employer investigation, and resulting harm to affected persons demonstrated disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.
The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty despite expressing concern that revocation might otherwise have been warranted.
It imposed an oral reprimand, a 16-month suspension with partial remission conditional on compliance, remediation terms, publication, and $13,000 in costs.
Tribunal asserts territorial jurisdiction over international cycling body regarding discriminatory licensing requirements imposed in Ontario.
The applicant, a transitioned female cyclist, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the imposition of anti-doping requirements as a condition of obtaining a race license.
The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction, timeliness, and whether to add WADA as a respondent.
The Tribunal found it had territorial jurisdiction over the UCI, as it extensively regulates the licensing process in Ontario, but not over the IOC or WADA.
The Tribunal also found the applicant's claims regarding the denial of her race licenses in 2013, 2014, and 2015 were timely as a continuing contravention, but claims regarding the Stockholm Consensus were out of time.
The request to summarily dismiss the application for lacking a reasonable prospect of success was denied.
Charter Application granted
The Attorney General of Canada moved to dismiss an application by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Christopher Parsons, arguing it was moot following *R. v. Spencer* and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
The application challenged sections of the *Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act* (PIPEDA) concerning the collection and disclosure of personal information to government institutions without consent, alleging breaches of sections 7 and 8 of the *Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms*.
The court dismissed the Attorney General's motion, finding that *Spencer* did not render the application moot as it addressed a narrower issue and did not cover systemic challenges, intelligence gathering, or accountability mechanisms under PIPEDA.
The court also found that the Amended Notice of Application disclosed a reasonable cause of action, particularly regarding the lack of oversight mechanisms and the potential for arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate infringements of Charter rights.
