The court held that the Council for Licensed Practical Nurses (the “Council”) was unreasonable in its approach to the assessment of the Respondent’s credibility and in its application of the standard of proof, holding that the evidence was not sufficiently cogent to safely sustain two of the complaints against the Appellant Nurse. However, the Council’s decision that the Nurse failed to maintain the ethical standards of practice of the profession was rationally supported by the evidence and it was not shown to be unreasonable.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Gillis v. Council for Licensed Practical Nurses, [2004] N.J. No. 187, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 20, 2004, ...

An appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers was dismissed as the court found that the Committee’s decision was reasonable, it had jurisdiction to deal with discipline matters arising out of conduct which occurred before the College came into existence, and the delay involved did not amount to abuse of process

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Delay – Jurisdiction of tribunal Bhadauria v. Ontario College of Teachers, [2004] O.J. No. 2468, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 9, ...

The court declined to quash the decision of the Discipline Panel of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “APEGBC”) which had made a finding of unprofessional conduct on the part of the Appellant as a result of him signing, sealing and submitting structural drawings for a building permit and preparing support design calculations which did not conform to the British Columbia Building Code. The court held that the charge was sufficiently particularized and there was no merit to the allegation that the Panel found misconduct based on elements not enumerated in the charge. While the Respondent did breach a duty to disclose documentation, the Appellant’s right to make full answer and defence was not impaired as a result. It was not unreasonable for the Panel to find that the Appellant demonstrated unprofessional conduct and there was no error in the penalty imposed.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Engineers – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Hearings – Natural justice – Disclosure – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Familamiri v. Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. ...

The appeal by a notary public (“Bailey”) of the penalty imposed by the Board of Directors of the Society of Notaries was dismissed. The court held that the decision to impose a fine and a suspension on a third complaint arising from a breach of an undertaking was not unreasonable.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Notaries – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Society of Notaries – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Bailey v. Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, [2004] B.C.J. No. 626, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 27, 2004, Brown J. On December 27, 2002, the ...

The Lunenburg County District School Board (the “School Board”) appealed the decision of the Supreme Court quashing a decision by the Board of Appeal dismissing a teacher (“Haché”) charged with sexual offences against his students. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal holding that the evidence relied on by the Board of Appeal was not capable of supporting the evidence of the complainants.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – School boards – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Witnesses Haché v. Lunenburg County District School Board, [2004] N.S.J. No. 120, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, March 30, 2004, Glube C.J.N.S., Freeman and Cromwell JJ.A. In 1995, the School Board ...

Dr. Devgan was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the College. Following the hearing, Dr. Devgan appealed the decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee was stayed. The College sought to lift the automatic stay of the Order. The court refused to lift the stay so long as Dr. Devgan complied with a number of conditions. Dr. Devgan failed to comply with the court’s conditions and the College once again sought to lift the stay. The College’s motion was granted and Dr. Devgan’s licence to practise was revoked.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Public interest – Suspensions – Stay of suspension – Court imposed conditions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons Devgan v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2004] O.J. No. 517, Ontario Superior Court of ...

A teacher (“Mitchell”) was successful in her appeal from a decision of the Council of the British Columbia College of Teachers (the “College”) cancelling her certificate of qualification and terminating her membership in the College. The court found that the College failed to give any analysis or consideration to many mitigating factors specific to this case resulting in an unreasonable decision with respect to penalty.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Public interest – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Mitchell v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2003] B.C.J. No. 3056, British Columbia Supreme Court. October 27, ...

The Applicant solicitor was successful in obtaining an Order prohibiting the Respondent Law Society of New Brunswick (the “Law Society”) from continuing any proceedings against him arising out of charges contained in a Notice of Complaint. The court found that the subject matter of the present complaint had already been considered and dealt with by the Law Society and that the matter was res judicata.

27. April 2004 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Judicial review – Estoppel and res judicata A Solicitor v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2004] N.B.J. No. 81, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, February 25, 2004, Guerette J. Over the period of January and February ...

The appellant teacher unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Hearing Panel of the disciplinary committee of the British Columbia College of Teachers (“BCCT”) finding him guilty of conduct unbecoming on the grounds that he made discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals in a number of published writings. The appellant also unsuccessfully appealed the penalty of the one-month suspension of his teaching certificate.

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Teachers – Teachers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression Kempling v. British Columbia College ...

A physician (“Dr. Young”) successfully appealed both the decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Committee (the “Committee”) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (the “College”) in which he was found guilty of unbecoming, improper, unprofessional or discreditable conduct and the associated penalty

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Evidence – Reliability – Witnesses – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Young v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, [2004] S.J. No. 21, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, January 13, 2004, Koch J. Dr. Young was ...