Maya Pearlston

The appellant veterinarian appealed a finding of professional misconduct and a penalty decision by the College's Discipline Committee, which included a three-month suspension and a $135,000 costs award.

The misconduct related to the misdiagnosis and improper treatment of a dog's fractured paw.

On appeal, the appellant raised several procedural and constitutional arguments, including allegations of bias, unconstitutional by-laws, and failure to provide reasons by the Complaints Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law, and upheld the costs award as reasonable given the appellant's conduct during the proceedings.

The appellant veterinarian appealed the penalty and costs order of the Discipline Committee following a rehearing.

The Committee had ordered a one-month suspension and $65,000 in costs after the Divisional Court previously set aside some, but not all, findings of professional misconduct.

The appellant also brought several preliminary motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct, bias, and constitutional violations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the preliminary motions as being without merit or previously decided.

The Court also dismissed the appeal on penalty and costs, finding no error in principle and that the penalty was not clearly unfit.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent College in the amount of $15,000.

The moving party, a veterinarian previously found guilty of professional misconduct, brought three motions seeking reasons from the Complaints Committee, admission of fresh evidence, and a stay of penalties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions, finding it lacked jurisdiction as there was no existing proceeding.

The court also held that the issues raised were res judicata, having been previously decided by the Discipline Committee and the Divisional Court on appeal.

The motions were deemed an abuse of process and dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a three-month licence suspension and costs.

The misconduct arose from the appellant attending a client's home unannounced to collect an unpaid bill, resulting in a physical altercation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's factual findings or penalty.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking a condition that the appellant practise under supervision was also dismissed.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a 12-month licence suspension and related conditions imposed by the Discipline Committee for professional misconduct, including false advertising and failing to follow client instructions.

The College cross-appealed the Committee's decision to allow the appellant to own a mobile veterinary practice post-suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding the penalty was supported by evidence, adequately reasoned, and not disproportionately harsh given the appellant's prior disciplinary record.

The court also found no error in the Committee's distinction between clinics and mobile services for the ownership restriction.

The appellant massage therapist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient.

The appellant argued the investigation was procedurally unfair, there was undue delay, and the Committee erred in its credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that any initial procedural unfairness was cured, there was no evidence of prejudice from delay, and the Committee's credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.