Richard Steinecke

The applicant, a designated manager of a pharmacy, sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

Following a dispensing error where a pediatric patient received the wrong medication, the ICRC ordered the applicant to receive an oral caution and complete a remedial course on root cause analysis.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable given the applicant's responsibility for pharmacy policies.

The applicant, a pharmacy manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to caution him and require an educational program following a serious dispensing error by a pharmacist at his pharmacy.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair, claiming he was improperly held responsible for another's mistake and denied procedural fairness regarding his discipline history and communication issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, noting the applicant's responsibility as designated manager for pharmacy policies and procedures.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $116,000 following their successful challenge to provisions of the Building Code Act, 1992 and the Building Code Regulation.

The applicants argued they were public interest litigants.

The court agreed, finding that the applicant Association was virtually compelled to bring the application to defend its statutory mandate to regulate professional engineers.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs but reduced the quantum to $75,000, finding the claimed amount exceeded what was fair and reasonable for a two-day hearing.

The applicants, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) and a professional engineer, brought an application for judicial review challenging the validity of amendments to the Building Code.

They argued that the amendments unlawfully established a duplicate registration and disciplinary scheme for PEO licence holders who design or conduct general reviews of buildings.

The Divisional Court held that while the sub-delegation of examination administration was lawful, certain provisions of the Building Code exceeded the regulatory authority granted by the Building Code Act.

Furthermore, the court applied the modern rule of statutory interpretation to find that the Building Code Act did not authorize regulations that impinge on the PEO's exclusive statutory authority to regulate the character, competence, and conduct of professional engineers.

The court declared the conflicting provisions invalid or inapplicable to PEO licence holders.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought an application regarding an ongoing tribunal hearing involving the Sleep Disorders Centres.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that no significant harm or breach of natural justice would occur by refusing to decide the issue, especially since the report in question had already been disclosed.

The Court concluded that all related issues should be determined by the tribunal based on a full and complete record.

Following an appeal of a professional discipline decision where the appellant succeeded on one of twelve grounds, both parties sought costs.

The Divisional Court found that success was not evenly divided, as the appellant failed to upset the basic findings of professional misconduct against him.

The Court awarded costs to the respondent College on a partial indemnity basis, reduced to reflect the appellant's limited success, fixing the amount at $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant denturist appealed a Discipline Committee's findings of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct, which included fabricating inadequate dentures, poor record-keeping, and secretly tape-recording a conversation with a patient.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that evidence was obtained through an unlawful warrantless search and seizure, noting the items were voluntarily supplied or in plain view.

However, because the Committee's reasons contained factual errors regarding the timing of the denture fabrication and the appellant's practices after taking remedial courses, the court remitted the matter of penalty to the Committee for reconsideration.

The appellants sued two dental regulatory Colleges in negligence, misfeasance of public office, and breach of Charter rights, alleging the Colleges failed to implement adequate standards to prevent temporomandibular joint injuries during dental hygiene treatments.

The motions judge struck the claims against the Colleges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence to hold that the Colleges' statutory duty is to the public as a whole, not to individual patients, and therefore they owe no private law duty of care to the appellants.