Daniel R. Libman

The registrant admitted professional misconduct arising from several years of improper insurance billing, falsified treatment notes and receipts, and failures to keep required records.

The Tribunal applied the joint-submission standard and accepted a jointly proposed penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and was not contrary to the public interest.

In doing so, it emphasized public protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation, and compared the proposed disposition to prior discipline decisions involving false receipts and deficient record keeping.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, specified educational and compliance conditions, and costs.

The respondents, a licensed professional engineer and his engineering firm, faced discipline for providing deficient structural engineering drawings and allowing an unlicensed employee to hold himself out as a professional engineer.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, including negligence and undertaking work outside their competence.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the member's licence and the firm's Certificate of Authorization, and a restriction prohibiting them from providing structural engineering services.

The applicant sought judicial review of five decisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal spanning from 2008 to 2018.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the first four decisions due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, noting both presumed and actual prejudice as the Tribunal's records had been destroyed.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's 2018 decision refusing to reconsider a 2009 decision, finding it reasonable given the unexplained seven-year delay in requesting the reconsideration.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Drug Benefit Program to revoke its billing privileges.

The Executive Officer found the pharmacy had made over $87,000 in unsubstantiated billings and over $62,000 in improper billings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Executive Officer's decision was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness.

This decision addresses multiple pre-trial motions in a large-scale drug trafficking prosecution, focusing on Charter violations related to search and seizure (s.8) and the right to counsel (s.10), as well as the voluntariness of an utterance.

The court found the initial warrantless search for cocaine unconstitutional and excluded the evidence.

The initial search warrant for the Warwick premises was quashed, but other evidence seized under it was admitted.

Covert camera evidence was admitted despite an unlawful installation, but references to it were excised from subsequent Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

Tracking warrants and general warrants for other properties were largely upheld after excising unconstitutionally obtained information.

An accused's utterance was found voluntary and admitted, despite a s.10 Charter violation, as the impact on Charter rights was deemed slight and exclusion would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion seeking a ruling that the accused had waived solicitor-client privilege regarding communications with his former counsel.

The accused had filed a written waiver at the preliminary hearing, purporting to limit the waiver to oral communications during a specific time period and solely for the purpose of the preliminary hearing.

The court held that the waiver could not be limited to the preliminary hearing, as doing so would allow the accused to use privilege as a sword rather than a shield and risk misleading the court.

The Crown was permitted to cross-examine the former counsel on any relevant communications within the specified time frame.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop of a vehicle flagged in the CPIC system as a re-vinned crime vehicle.

The court found multiple Charter violations: a breach of section 10(b) rights to counsel when the accused made incriminating statements about marijuana without being advised of his rights, and a breach of section 8 rights against unreasonable search when police searched the accused's pockets and subsequently the vehicle without lawful authority.

The court excluded the heroin evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the seriousness of the breaches and the impact on the accused's rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was convicted by a jury of importing 3.9 kg of opium.

The court determined the appropriate sentence, finding that the accused had actual knowledge of the opium and was a principal in the importation scheme, not merely a courier.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, distinguishing the case from others based on the accused's role and lack of significant mitigating personal circumstances.

A sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed, along with a weapons prohibition, victim surcharge, DNA order, and forfeiture order.

The accused was charged with trafficking heroin and claimed he was acting as a police agent under the direction and control of an unnamed detective, relying on the exemption in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulation.

The Crown brought a motion arguing there was no air of reality to this defence.

The court reviewed the accused's testimony and found that he had explicitly rejected the detective's instructions and acted on his own initiative when arranging the drug transaction.

The court concluded there was no evidential foundation that the accused was acting under the direction and control of a police officer, and ruled the defence would not be put to the jury.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case rested on breathalyzer readings of 118 mg and 110 mg.

The accused raised a bolus drinking defence, arguing that she had consumed most of the alcohol immediately before being stopped and that it had not been fully absorbed into her bloodstream at the time of driving.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence regarding the timing and volume of her alcohol consumption, finding her testimony not credible.

The trial judge also found problems with the expert evidence that was based on the accused's account.

The accused was convicted.

The applicant massage therapist sought judicial review of a caution issued by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee regarding her advertising practices.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application, as the proceeding was initiated by a Registrar's report rather than a complaint, meaning no appeal lay to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

On the merits, the Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the strongly worded caution was appropriate remedial guidance rather than an unauthorized disciplinary reprimand.

Maple Lodge Farms was convicted of twenty counts of violating the Health of Animals Act and Regulations by failing to prevent undue suffering of chickens during transportation through inadequate protection from adverse weather and insufficient ventilation.

Between December 2008 and April 2010, over 25,450 chickens died during transport or upon arrival at the facility.

The corporation received a fine of $80,000 on two representative counts and a three-year suspended sentence with probation on the remaining eighteen counts.

The probation order required the corporation to expend a minimum of $1,000,000 on capital improvements to trailers, holding facilities, and transportation procedures, with oversight by an independent expert and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.