The appeal by an accountant (“Macdonald”) of a decision of the discipline tribunal panel of the Institute of Chartered Accountants (the “Tribunal”) cancelling his membership and requiring him to pay costs of $6,832 was dismissed where the Court concluded that Macdonald should have raised the issue of double jeopardy before the Tribunal

23. February 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Institute of Chartered Accountants – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Investigations – Fairness – Offences – Double jeopardy Macdonald v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, [2009] B.C.J. No. 2369, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 27, 2009, A.M. Stewart J. Macdonald was ...

The Appellant, Dr. D, appealed to the Ontario Superior Court from the decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) whereby the Committee found Dr. D. to have engaged in professional misconduct in relation to his care and treatment of three terminally ill cancer patients. The Appellant also appealed the consequent decision to impose the penalty of revocation. The appeals against both the convictions and the penalty were dismissed.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Double jeopardy – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Devgan v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, ...

An aviation company operating tourist flights (“Delco”) was charged with (i) landing or taking off an aircraft in a built-up area of a city or town without authorization, and (ii) the use of Class F Special Use Restricted Airspace. The Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal held that the two sets of charges were founded upon the same acts and that, due to the legal nexus between the counts, Delco had been placed in a position of double jeopardy. The Appeal Panel stayed two of the charges. The Ministry appealed to the Federal Court who held that a legal double jeopardy only exists if there are no additional and distinguishing elements between two charges. Although arising from the same transaction, the Act created separate and distinct offences as a “built up area” is not necessarily “Class F Airspace” and vice versa. The decision of the Appeal Panel was quashed and the decision of the Tribunal member was reinstated.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Civil Aviation Tribunal – Penalties – Double jeopardy – Kienapple rule – Judicial review application – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Minister of Transport) v. Delco Aviation Ltd., [2002] F.C.J. No. 938, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, June 12, 2003, Blanchard ...