The appellant, a veterinarian, appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct related to a corrective cherry eye surgery on a dog, and the subsequent penalty and costs decisions.
The appellant raised several procedural and substantive grounds, including reasonable apprehension of bias, procedural fairness at the investigatory stage, and the standard of proof.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the procedural complaints and affording deference to the Tribunal's findings on evidence, penalty, and costs.
Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent in the reduced amount of $6,000.
