Karen Jones

The appellant chiropractor appealed a $128,000 costs order made against him by the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropractors following findings of professional misconduct.

He argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the quantum was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Health Professions Procedural Code's costs provisions prevailed and that the quantum was reasonable given the length and complexity of the hearing, the serious nature of the misconduct, and the appellant's refusal to admit wrongdoing.

The appellant appealed a costs order of the Discipline Committee and brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the appellant was attempting an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying merits decision, which had already been upheld on appeal.

Furthermore, the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the test for admission as it could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a Discipline Committee finding of professional misconduct and mandatory revocation of his registration for sexually abusing a patient.

The appellant and the complainant had a pre-existing intimate and sexual relationship before she became his patient.

The Divisional Court found the Committee's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider whether the sexual relationship arose out of the pre-existing spousal relationship rather than the professional-patient relationship, misinterpreting the concept of 'incidental' treatment.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for providing confidential information from the 2004 Extended Class Registration Exam to candidates of the 2005 exam, and for failing to abide by a written undertaking to maintain exam confidentiality.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, characterizing the conduct as dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and imposing terms on the Member's certificate of registration, including mandatory meetings with a nursing ethics expert.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a suspension.

The misconduct related to administering Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy to a mentally disabled patient without proper consent, which was found to be outside the scope of chiropractic practice.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by making findings on uncharged matters, failing to give adequate notice, and erring in its credibility assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had adequate notice through pre-hearing disclosure and that the Committee's credibility findings and penalty were reasonable.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for making inappropriate comments to a client, failing to maintain boundaries, and bathing the client without consent.

Following a contested start to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement and the Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and various remedial conditions on the Member's certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct after mistakenly injecting a patient with potassium chloride instead of normal saline and heparin, resulting in the patient's death.

The Member admitted to the allegations and the Discipline Committee found her guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a one-month suspension of her certificate of registration, imposed terms and conditions including a return to work program and learning plan, and required her to appear for a reprimand, noting she had already served a three-month employment suspension.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to engaging in a sexual relationship with a psychiatric patient while employed at a hospital.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing the patient and violating professional boundaries.

The Member brought a Charter challenge, arguing that the mandatory revocation penalty discriminated against her on the basis of a mental disability.

The panel dismissed the Charter challenge, finding insufficient evidence that the Member suffered from a mental disability that affected her functioning at the time of the misconduct.

The panel ordered the mandatory penalty of revocation of the Member's certificate of registration and a reprimand.

The applicant sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying him standing at an ongoing inquest.

The coroner found the applicant did not meet the statutory requirements for standing under either the public law or private law tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the coroner's decision was entitled to curial deference and was not unreasonable.

The court emphasized the need to avoid interrupting the ongoing statutory hearing and found no serious error in principle that would justify interference.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct relating to the misappropriation of narcotics.

During the discipline hearing, it was revealed that a panel member served on a hospital committee with the principal witness against the appellant, but this was not disclosed until deliberations had begun.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the undisclosed relationship and subsequent conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias that vitiated the panel's decision.

Given the circumstantial evidence, poor hospital record-keeping, and the passage of time, the Court quashed the decision and ordered a stay of proceedings rather than a rehearing.