Julie Maciura

The appellant, a dental hygienist, appealed the mandatory revocation of his registration for professional misconduct (sexual abuse of a patient, his eventual spouse).

The appeal challenged the Court of Appeal's prior decisions in Leering and Mussani, arguing that the "zero-tolerance" policy and mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code infringed sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that sexual abuse is established by the concurrence of a health professional-patient relationship and a sexual relationship, and that mandatory revocation does not violate Charter rights, as economic interests are not protected by sections 7 or 12, and the penalty is not cruel or unusual.

The court also clarified the narrow scope of the spousal exception.

The appellant massage therapist appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee imposing an eight-month suspension for professional misconduct.

The appellant argued the penalty was unreasonable because the Tribunal erroneously found he admitted to touching the complainant's sensitive areas.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the admissions were not clear and unambiguous regarding sensitive areas.

The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was reduced to the four-week suspension already served.

Following dismissal of an application by a professional regulatory body seeking to restrain alleged unauthorized practice under the Professional Foresters Act, 2000, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $127,000.

The regulator argued that no costs should be awarded because the proceeding raised novel public-interest issues concerning regulation of professional forestry and the enforcement of statutory duties.

The court held that while regulators acting in the public interest may sometimes avoid costs, they are not automatically exempt from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.

Given the vigorous litigation pursued against the respondent, partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The court awarded $90,000 in partial indemnity costs to the respondents.

The applicant, a midwife, brought a motion for an order requiring the College of Midwives of Ontario to file the complete record of proceedings relating to an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision about another midwife.

The applicant had made a mandatory report about the other midwife, and the ICRC decided to take no action but made critical comments about the applicant's report.

The applicant sought the record for her application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the ICRC did not exercise a statutory power of decision with respect to the applicant, and that the College was prohibited from producing the record under the confidentiality provisions of the Regulated Health Professions Act.