3 total
Application for judicial review to quash College investigation dismissed as premature.
The applicant, a member of the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, sought judicial review to quash the appointment of investigators who were investigating her failure to pay legal costs to the College.
The applicant argued the College lacked jurisdiction as inability to pay cannot constitute professional misconduct.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, administrative processes should run their full course before judicial intervention.
Relief granted decision
The College of Veterinarians of Ontario sought costs after partially succeeding in an application against Birgit Johnston and Cutting Edge K9 Oral Hygiene.
The College had obtained a declaration and injunctive relief prohibiting the respondents from holding themselves out as practitioners of veterinary medicine, though they were not found to be practicing veterinary medicine.
The College requested $15,000 in costs, significantly less than their actual incurred fees of over $75,000.
The self-represented respondents sought costs, but failed to meet the two-part test for self-represented parties to claim costs, specifically lacking evidence of opportunity cost.
The court awarded the College $15,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 90 days, considering partial success and proportionality.
Cosmetic dog teeth cleaning is not veterinary medicine, but advertising implied health benefits constituted holding out.
The applicant College sought an order enjoining the respondent from providing anesthesia-free dog teeth cleaning services, arguing it constituted the unlicensed practice of veterinary medicine.
The court found that the cosmetic cleaning of dog teeth without anesthesia did not constitute the practice of veterinary dentistry.
However, the court concluded that the respondent's website and advertising held her out as providing veterinary services by implying health benefits and an ability to advise on oral care.
The court granted an injunction prohibiting the respondent from holding herself out as capable of diagnosing or treating canine oral health conditions.