Where a hearing panel’s penalty decision falls within a reasonable range of outcomes, deference should be given to that committee’s decision in light of its expertise

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Sexual relations with patients – Suspensions College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Peirovy, [2018] OJ No 2341, ...

A prior penalty decision can be considered by a hearing panel in making a subsequent penalty decision, even if the prior penalty is under review, depending on the wording of the governing legislation

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Law Societies – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Suspensions Law Society of British Columbia v. Perrick, [2018] BCJ No 785, 2018 BCCA 169, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 2, 2018, M.E. Saunders, ...

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed an appeal made by a veterinarian from a regulatory order suspending his licence and requiring him to attend addictions treatment on the basis that he was denied procedural fairness

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterinary Associations – Veterinarians – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Licence to practice – Suspensions – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Notice – Disclosure Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Assn., [2015] A.J. No. 1398, 2015 ABCA 396, Alberta Court of Appeal, ...

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant physician from four decisions of the Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) when found that she failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession; had engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct; and demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment in her treatment of a number of patients. The Court upheld the Committee’s penalty of a two year suspension and restrictive terms thereafter preventing the appellant from practising as a cosmetic surgeon, and performing any surgery except as a surgical assistant in a hospital under supervision. The Court also upheld the Committee’s finding that the appellant contravened the advertising regulation under the Medicine Act, 1991 S.O. 1991 c.30, finding that the CPSO’s ban on the use of testimonials and superlatives was constitutional.

24. December 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and surgeons – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Competence – Advertising – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Yazdanfar v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2013] O.J. No. ...

The Appeals by three corporations and four individuals from findings of fraud and misrepresentation, and from sanctions imposed by the Securities Commission were dismissed where the Court held that the Commission was entitled to use interview evidence obtained during the investigative process

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Investigations – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Public interest – Judicial review – Hearings – Evidence – Interviews – Disclosure – Hearsay Evidence – admissibility Alberta (Securities Commission) v. Brost, [2008] A.J. No. 1071, Alberta Court of Appeal, October ...

The Court ordered that a publication ban relating to an assessor’s report of Dr. Menon’s practice be dissolved where it was not satisfied that Dr. Menon had established that the salutary effects of the continuing ban outweighed its deleterious effects

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Publication ban – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Suspensions – Judicial review – Disclosure – Evidence – Compliance with legislation Menon v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, [2008] N.B.J. No. 124, New Brunswick Court ...

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 2007 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. ...

After an inspection found that funeral contracts offered by Strong did not contain a detailed listing of the goods and services to be provided, and following on a complaint to the Board that Strong and his assistant were personally signing cremation authorizations forms rather than having a personal representative of the deceased do so, Strong’s licence was suspended by the Alberta Funeral Services Regulatory Board (the “Board”). Strong appealed, and the Appeal Board substituted a six-month license suspension and a reprimand. The Board appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench which dismissed the appeal.

23. January 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Funeral Services – Permits and licences – Suspensions – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Test – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Alberta (Funeral Services Regulatory Board) v. Strong, [2006] A.J. No 558, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 5, 2006, Ross J. The first question ...

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.

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 Appeal of Genex from a decision of the CRTC cancelling its radio broadcast licence was dismissed as Genex was unable to establish a breach of the principles of natural justice, the standards of procedural fairness or the CRTC’s own rules of procedure. It was also unable to demonstrate a jurisdictional error or a material error in law that would render the decision unreasonable.

22. November 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission – Permits and licences – Suspensions – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression Genex Communications Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1440, Federal Court of Appeal, September 1, 2005, Richard C.J., Létourneau ...