Neil J. Perrier

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Panel, which had overturned a Hearing Panel's dismissal of professional misconduct complaints and remitted four particulars for a new hearing.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction, finding the Appeal Panel's decision was a final order.

On the merits, the Court held that the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded the Hearing Panel had misapprehended the evidence by failing to accord any weight to the factual findings of predicate tribunals (the HRTO and Superior Court).

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the Law Society.

The Registrar of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario appealed a decision of the Registration Committee directing the issuance of a professional engineering licence to the respondent.

The respondent, who held a foreign bachelor's degree and a Canadian master's degree, had previously failed two technical examinations assigned by the Academic Requirements Committee.

The Registration Committee found that the respondent's master's degree, combined with his foreign bachelor's degree, met the academic equivalency requirements for licensure.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's decision was justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant physiotherapist pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for misrepresenting his educational credentials and practice hours.

He appealed the Discipline Committee's penalty of a 12-month suspension and a $25,000 costs award.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was justified for specific and general deterrence given the serious nature of the misrepresentations, and that the costs award was an appropriate proportion of the actual costs incurred.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's penalty permitting her to surrender her licence, failing which it would be revoked.

The appellant argued the penalty was unreasonable and the Hearing Panel failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty reasonable given the appellant's 43 particulars of professional misconduct, lack of insight, and psychiatric evidence indicating a notoriously difficult-to-treat personality disorder.

The court also held the Hearing Panel's reasons were adequate and permitted meaningful review.