2 total
Pharmacist's appeal of sexual abuse finding dismissed; dispensing coworker's prescription created a pharmacist-patient relationship.
The appellant pharmacist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of sexually abusing a patient who was also his coworker.
The appellant argued the Committee erred in finding the coworker was a 'patient' under the Patient Criteria Regulation, asserting that dispensing a prescription did not constitute a 'direct interaction'.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the determination of whether a patient relationship existed was a question of mixed fact and law subject to deference.
The Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's conclusion that dispensing a prescription and conducting a clinical verification constituted a direct interaction creating a pharmacist-patient relationship.
The court summarily dismissed a $100 billion claim against the Attorney General for judicial decisions, citing absolute judicial immunity.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's action against the Attorney General of Canada as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff sought $100 billion for alleged violations related to various judicial orders, claiming they were fraudulent and negligent.
The court affirmed the doctrine of judicial immunity, stating that judges are exempt from civil liability for acts in their judicial capacity, even if alleged to be in bad faith.
It also held that the Attorney General of Canada is not responsible or vicariously liable for judicial decisions, underscoring the independence of the judiciary.
The claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
