The appellant optometrist sought judicial review of the College's 1996 decision refusing to renew his license for failing to provide evidence of continuing education, and its 2001 decision imposing conditions on his application for a new license.
The Supreme Court of Canada applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was reasonableness.
The Court upheld the 1996 refusal to renew and the 2001 condition requiring a jurisprudence examination as reasonable.
However, the Court quashed the 2001 condition requiring an ethics course, finding it unreasonable because no such course was accredited or prescribed by the College.
