Lisa S. Braverman

The appellant optometrist appealed a decision of the College's discipline committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for the sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a new hearing, finding that the discipline committee made palpable and overriding errors in its credibility assessments.

Specifically, the committee subjected the appellant's evidence to a higher standard of scrutiny than the complainant's evidence, resulting in an unfair proceeding.

The applicant, a certified general accountant, sought judicial review of decisions by the Professional Conduct Tribunal and Appeal Tribunal finding him guilty of professional misconduct, revoking his membership, and imposing fines and costs.

The Divisional Court held that the Appeal Tribunal lacked standing to argue the merits of the application.

On the merits, the Court found the Liability Decision unreasonable because it lacked adequate reasons and relied on purely formulaic, conclusory credibility findings without analyzing the evidence.

The decisions were set aside and the matter remitted for a rehearing before a differently constituted panel.

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 Ontario Professional Foresters Association (OPFA) brought an application against the respondent for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of professional forestry and using prohibited designations under the Professional Foresters Act, 2000.

The OPFA relied heavily on the expert opinion of a former OPFA president.

The court found the expert evidence inadmissible due to a lack of independence and objectivity.

The court also held that the respondent was entitled to the statutory exception for work performed under the supervision of a registered professional forester, and that the quality of that supervision was not a relevant factor for the exception.

The court concluded the respondent did not breach the Act and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a certified general accountant, sought judicial review of a professional misconduct conviction based entirely on deemed admissions.

The applicant had failed to respond to a request to admit within the 20-day period due to personal stress and seeking new counsel.

The conduct committee dismissed his motion to withdraw the deemed admissions without providing reasons, and he was subsequently convicted without being permitted to call evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the conduct committee's decision was unreasonable and that the failure to provide reasons for a decision of such significance constituted a breach of natural justice.

The appellant, a licensed funeral director, appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Licence Appeal Tribunal's revocation of her licence for professional misconduct.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by not deferring to the Discipline Committee's penalty decision and that there was no evidence her conduct endangered the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal hearing was de novo under the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, requiring no deference, and that the Tribunal's findings of deceitful conduct were well-supported by the evidence.

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.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed two decisions of its Discipline Committee acquitting a veterinarian of various allegations of professional misconduct, including animal abuse, misdiagnosis, and inappropriate comments.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee's reasons were woefully inadequate, failed to address material evidence, contained inconsistent findings, and were ultimately unreasonable.

The matters were remitted to a differently constituted panel for new hearings.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that granted Dr. Deemar's application for judicial review of pre-hearing rulings by the College's Discipline Committee.

The Discipline Committee had excluded the expert evidence of Dr. Leslie, a former Registrar of the College dismissed in acrimonious circumstances, and Dr. Henry, whose report was deemed irrelevant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee correctly excluded the expert reports due to lack of independence and relevance, and that the Complaints Committee had conducted an adequate investigation.

The Divisional Court's order was set aside and the judicial review application was dismissed.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $116,000 following their successful challenge to provisions of the Building Code Act, 1992 and the Building Code Regulation.

The applicants argued they were public interest litigants.

The court agreed, finding that the applicant Association was virtually compelled to bring the application to defend its statutory mandate to regulate professional engineers.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs but reduced the quantum to $75,000, finding the claimed amount exceeded what was fair and reasonable for a two-day hearing.

The applicants, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) and a professional engineer, brought an application for judicial review challenging the validity of amendments to the Building Code.

They argued that the amendments unlawfully established a duplicate registration and disciplinary scheme for PEO licence holders who design or conduct general reviews of buildings.

The Divisional Court held that while the sub-delegation of examination administration was lawful, certain provisions of the Building Code exceeded the regulatory authority granted by the Building Code Act.

Furthermore, the court applied the modern rule of statutory interpretation to find that the Building Code Act did not authorize regulations that impinge on the PEO's exclusive statutory authority to regulate the character, competence, and conduct of professional engineers.

The court declared the conflicting provisions invalid or inapplicable to PEO licence holders.

The applicant brought applications for judicial review of decisions made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Divisional Court denied the applicant's request to call witnesses, noting that judicial review is limited to the record before the administrative boards.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the court found both administrative decisions to be reasonable and dismissed the applications as frivolous and vexatious.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy-Naturopathy.

The applicant also brought a motion for an interim stay, while the respondent Board brought a cross-motion to quash the application.

The Board conceded that the Complaints Committee's proceedings were void ab initio because the Board lacked jurisdiction to delegate its disciplinary powers to a committee.

The court agreed, finding the proceedings and any resulting agreements void.

Consequently, the court allowed the cross-motion and dismissed the application for judicial review as an academic exercise.