An engineer appealed from a decision of the Council of the Respondent Association that had found him guilty of conduct that constituted unskilled practice or unprofessional conduct. The Court confirmed one finding of unprofessional conduct, but on a second found that the Council had incorrectly applied the reasonableness standard of review to evidence regarding the appropriate Yukon standard of practice.

22. August 2006 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Penalties and suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Association of Professional Engineers – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ellwood v. Assn. of Professional Engineers of Yukon, [2006] Y.J. No. 49, Yukon Territory Supreme Court, June 19, 2006, Veale J. ...

A family physician (“Dr. Au”) was unsuccessful in quashing an Amended Notice of Hearing regarding allegations of inappropriate touching. He alleged that new members of the Discipline Committee who would hear those allegations were tainted by their exposure to previous members of the Discipline Committee who were also members of the Patient Relations Committee (“PRC”) in respect of the same complainants.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Bias – Jurisdiction College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Au, [2006] O.J. No. 1994, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, May 1, 2006, R.T.P. Gravely, J.M. ...

The Court refused the applicant’s leave to appeal the Respondent Commission’s interlocutory ruling and the Commission was entitled to proceed against the Applicant, notwithstanding that the CDNX exchange had imposed penalties on him in respect of the same underlying conduct. The Applicant’s other grounds of appeal were deemed premature, as the Court lacked a factual basis for granting appeal.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Hearings – Stay of proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Delay – Abuse of process – Judicial review – Appeals and leave to appeal – Jurisdiction Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2006] B.C.J. No. 727, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 24 2006, ...

The Court dismissed a former paramedic’s application for judicial review of a decision by a hospital’s Medical Director to decertify her as both a Primary Care Paramedic and Advanced Care Paramedic. The Court found that it had jurisdiction to review the decision, but that the Applicant had not been denied natural justice, the Medical Director’s decision was reasonable, and he had not exhibited bias.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Paramedics – Competence – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Medical director – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Public body – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Bias – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Scheerer v. Waldbillig, [2006] O.J. No. 744, Ontario Superior ...

The Chief of Police appealed from a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (“OCCPS”) reinstating a police officer (“Kelly”) where the Court found that the OCCPS articulated and applied the appropriate standard of review of reasonableness when overturning the decision of a Hearing Officer to terminate Kelly

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Civilian Commission on Police Services – Hearings – Evidence – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Toronto (City) Police Service v. Kelly, [2006] O.J. No. 1758, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 2, 2006, J.D. Carnwath, ...

An appeal by way of trial de novo from a decision of the Respondent Board of Dispensing Opticians finding the Appellant guilty of unprofessional conduct was dismissed. The Court accepted the customers’ evidence that the Appellant became upset and berated them when they were dissatisfied with lenses designed by the Appellant and held that this constituted unprofessional conduct. The Court also found that the Appellant was guilty of unprofessional conduct in attempting to influence the complaints process of the Board by threatening to withhold money owed to one of the customers unless he dropped his complaint. The penalty of a seven-week suspension imposed by the Board was appropriate and was confirmed by the Court.

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Opticians – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties and suspensions Carr v. Nova Scotia (Board of Dispensing Opticians), [2006] N.S.J. No. 10, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, January 12, 2006, D.L. MacLellan J. An appeal was filed by J.C. from the ...

Rankin and three other professional curlers were successful in their application for judicial review of the decisions of the Review Committee and the Appeal Committee of the Alberta Curling Federation (“ACF”). The Court held that the sanctions imposed were patently unreasonable and unsupported by reasons and should be set aside.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Curling Federation – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspension – Failure to provide reasons – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Procedural requirements and fairness Rankin v. Alberta Curling Federation Appeals Committee, [2005] A.J. No. 1759, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 16, 2005, Germain J. Curling ...

A physician (“Dr. Litchfield”) applied for judicial review of a decision by the Investigating Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) finding him guilty on 9 out of 10 charges of inappropriate examinations and performing manual therapy without consent. The Court considered whether it was appropriate to deal with the judicial review application at this stage or whether it should defer to allow for completion of the internal process, including a hearing by Council and a statutory right of appeal, as set out in the Medical Profession Act, R.S.A. 220, c.M-11, (the “MPA”). The general rule is that an adequate internal appeal process should be exhausted but the Court retains discretion to allow judicial review in the face of an internal appeal in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances did not exist. Council had broad powers to receive and consider relevant new evidence and address issues concerning legal errors and breaches of the College’s duty of fairness and duty to fairly investigate the complaints.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Investigations – Appeal process – Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Applications – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure – Evidence Litchfield v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, [2005] A.J. No. 1771, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, ...

A lawyer (“Regular”) was unsuccessful in appealing from a decision of the Law Society Discipline Committee which found that he had failed to act with integrity and to avoid questionable conduct in fulfilling his duties as a lawyer

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Sale of assets – definition – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Penalties – Judicial review – Evidence Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Regular, [2005] N.J. No. 372, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Court of Appeal, December 5, 2005, C.K. ...

Following a finding of professional misconduct, a Hearing Panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) ordered that the former member be disbarred. The LSUC Appeal Panel set aside the penalty order and substituted its penalty that the former member receive ongoing medical treatment, file medical reports, and practice law only as an employee of an approved member of the LSUC. On appeal by the LSUC, the Court found that the Appeal Panel stepped out of its proper role as a “first review tribunal” and erroneously took on a trial de novo role and proceeded as an initial hearing panel. The Court set aside the penalty imposed by the Appeal Panel and reinstated the Hearing Panel’s penalty of disbarment.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Disbarment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Appeal process – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness Law Society of Upper Canada v. Crozier, [2005] O.J. No. 4520, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 24, 2005, J.G.J. O’Driscoll, ...