Two naturopaths appealed the Discipline Committee's findings of professional misconduct, penalty, and costs orders against them.
The allegations included offering treatment outside the scope of practice, advertising cancer treatments, and failing to cooperate with investigators.
The appellants raised numerous procedural and Charter arguments, including unreasonable search and seizure, delay, vague allegations, and reasonable apprehension of bias due to similarities in the two separate panel decisions.
The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors of law, and held that the similarities in the decisions did not rebut the presumption of judicial integrity given the extensive overlap in the cases.
