Margaret Jill Dougherty

The appellant appealed a decision of Del Frate J. regarding the contents of the record for an appeal from the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that based on the parties' agreement and Practice Direction 6, the 17-volume record filed by the Director constituted the evidence at the hearing and must be included in the Tribunal's record for the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant, a social worker, sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Services Workers to issue a caution against her.

She argued the Committee breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose all complaint letters submitted by the complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee met its limited duty of fairness by providing reasonable information about the allegations and an opportunity to respond.

The court also held that the decision to caution was reasonable given the College's public interest mandate.

The appellant appealed a $60,000 costs award made by the Divisional Court following a one-day hearing.

The Court of Appeal found the award to be grossly excessive, disproportionate to similar proceedings, and violative of compensation principles underlying the costs grid.

The appeal was allowed, the costs award was set aside and reduced to $18,000, and the appellant was awarded $5,000 for the costs of the appeal and leave application.

The applicant, a professional horse trainer, sought judicial review of a penalty imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission after one of his horses tested positive for a Class III drug.

The applicant argued that the Commission denied him procedural fairness by refusing to disclose past penalty rulings, that the panel's rejection of a joint settlement proposal created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the imposed penalty of a 10-month suspension and $50,000 fine was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias as the panel maintained an open mind, and that the penalty was reasonable given the applicant's prior disciplinary record.

The successful applicant sought costs of $98,000 on a substantial indemnity basis following a judicial review of a decision revoking his licence.

The court noted the substantial consequence of the matter and the time required, but found the claimed amount exceeded what was reasonably recoverable and what the respondent might have anticipated.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $60,000.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the member engaged in sexualized and coercive communications with a vulnerable client while providing social service work services, including repeated vulgar comments, requests for photographs, and misuse of his position in relation to medication assistance.

The member did not attend or participate in the hearing, and the panel proceeded in his absence after finding proper notice.

The panel held that the conduct breached the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the Standards of Practice, and amounted to sexual, verbal, psychological, or emotional abuse, exploitation, and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

A partial hearing closure and publication ban were ordered to protect the client's identity.

The panel imposed a written reprimand, revocation of registration, a five-year prohibition on reapplying, publication of the decision, and costs of $25,603.35.