Court File and Parties
CITATION: Qureshi v. College of Chiropodists, 2014 ONSC 2294
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 325/13
DATE: 20140410
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
THEN, MATLOW AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
OMAR QURESHI Appellant
– and –
COLLEGE OF CHIROPODISTS OF ONTARIO Respondent
Shahzad Siddiqui, for the Appellant
Bernard C. LeBlanc, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: April 10, 2014
Oral Reasons for Judgment
LEDERER J. (orally)
[1] Omar Qureshi is a chiropodist. He is a member of the College. Until this matter arose, he was a member in good standing who had never been subject to discipline. During October, 2009, Omar Qureshi attended at two schools at what was said to be “Lunch and Learn” presentations for teachers. The name does not encompass the purpose behind the presentation. The point was to induce the teachers to buy orthotics.
[2] Omar Qureshi worked in company with Selman Naqvi who represented a business identified as Medical Orthopedics. They worked together. As a result of these sessions, a variety of allegations were made that Omar Qureshi had breached the standards applicable to his profession.
[3] The Discipline Committee of the College heard from three teachers and two other witnesses, Omar Qureshi and an individual presented by the College and accepted as an expert. It considered the evidence, made findings and determined that Omar Qureshi had breached the standards in a number of ways.
[4] Counsel for Omar Qureshi seeks to have this Court re-evaluate the evidence and determine, on that basis, that the panel was wrong. By way of example, counsel submits that the panel should have and we should find that the evidence of the expert should not be relied on, in part because, of inconsistencies.
[5] It must by now be trite to say that on an appeal, it is not for the Court to re-try the matter. There was evidence to support each of the findings made by the panel. Its decision was reasonable. That being so, there is nothing further for us to consider as to the merits.
[6] The panel determined that the two experts initially proffered by the two parties should be disqualified; the expert of the College, because she was familiar with the members of the panel and the expert proposed to be called by Omar Qureshi because he was a chiropractor and not an expert in chiropody. When the expert of the College was disqualified, there was an adjournment and the College given time to find another witness. The same cannot be said for Omar Qureshi. When he requested time to find another witness, no adjournment was allowed. There had already been a delay of six months while the College found and instructed its new expert. The panel expressed the concern that the matter should proceed. Given the expertise of the panel and the balancing of the competing interests of the parties, we see no prejudice to Omar Qureshi.
[7] The panel balanced the concern for its obligation to be fair to Omar Qureshi and for the public interest. This was a decision within its discretion.
[8] We see no basis on which it should be set aside. That being so, the decision of the panel in this regard must stand. This is not a basis for granting this appeal.
[9] Finally, Omar Qureshi quarrels with the penalty. He objects to the costs of $38,000 and the particulars of the supervision. The costs are a fraction of the actual expense incurred by the College which was approximately $130,000. As the request of the College recognizes, this would be totally out of proportion to the circumstances. While high, we see no basis for interfering with the order for costs that was made.
[10] With respect to supervision, counsel for Omar Qureshi seeks a limitation of the time it will last and some sense of the ultimate cost of that supervision. The order made limits supervision to two years. We acknowledge that Omar Qureshi should understand the penalty being imposed. Neither counsel objects to our imposing a cap on the cost of the supervision.
[11] Accordingly, we amend the decision of the panel only to say that the costs of the supervision for which Omar Qureshi is responsible, shall not exceed $5,000.
[12] In every other respect, the appeal is dismissed.
THEN J. (ORALLY)
[13] I have endorsed the Appeal Book in the following manner, This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered by Lederer J. on behalf of the Court with respect to all grounds pertaining to the merits of the appeal and allowed only with respect to a variance pertaining to the penalty where we impose a cap of $5,000 with respect to the costs of supervision.
[14] In our view, notwithstanding the limited partial success of the appellant on the penalty issue, we are of the view that it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances to award costs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive to the respondent.
THEN J.
MATLOW J.
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 10, 2014
Date of Release: April 29, 2014
CITATION: Qureshi v. College of Chiropodists, 2014 ONSC 2294
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 325/13
DATE: 20140410
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
THEN, MATLOW AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
OMAR QURESHI Appellant
– and –
COLLEGE OF CHIROPODISTS OF ONTARIO Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 10, 2014
Date of Release: April 29, 2014