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 ...

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 Devgan’s licence to practise was revoked.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 ...

The Appellant medical doctor (“Markman”) was charged with four allegations of professional misconduct, along with an allegation of incompetence

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Judicial intervention – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Sentencing – Public interest – Suspensions Markman v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3855, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 1, 2003, McRae, Gravely and Jennings JJ. ...

A chiropractor, convicted of six counts of professional misconduct and sentenced to nine months suspension and costs of over $80,000, unsuccessfully appealed the decision of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Chiropractors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Suspensions – Costs – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ressel v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 3032, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 25, 2003, O’Driscoll, Then and Lang ...

The Ontario Divisional Court upheld the finding of insider trading against the head institutional trader and part owner of Yorkton Securities Inc. (“Donnini”) made by the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”). The court reduced the trading suspension imposed by the OSC from 15 years to 4 years and directed that the matter of costs, which had been assessed by the OSC at $186,052.30, be referred back to the OSC to conduct an inquiry into the extent of the bill in order to substantiate the amount.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Penalties – Judicial review – Costs Donnini v. Ontario Securities Commission, [2003] O.J. No. 3541, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, September 15, 2003, Lane, Somers and Greer JJ. On June 11, 2002, two of the members ...

The founder and chair of a Vancouver based brokerage house (“Smolensky”), petitioned for prerogative and Charter relief to preclude the Securities Commission from hearing an allegation of insider trading made against him. The hearing was to be convened to consider the imposition of sanctions against Smolensky. The court held that judicial review of the situation should not be granted, given that the Securities Act contained a privative clause providing that no application for a judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act could be instituted against the Commission or an officer of the Commission for an act done in good faith in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under the Securities Act. The court further held that the judicial review was precluded by the court’s decision in Pezim, where it was determined that the Notice of Hearing was not issued pursuant to an exercise of a statutory power. Smolensky’s application for Charter relief was also denied on the grounds that section 148 of the Securities Act, which prohibits a person from disclosing except to their own lawyer any information or evidence obtained or sought to be obtained with respect to Securities Commission investigations and audits against them, did not violate sections 2, 7, 8, 11 or the Preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Self-governing professions – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Validity of legislation Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1805, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 29, 2003, ...

A physician holding a “Border Area License” allowing him to work in both the United States and Canada was suspended by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick for allegedly prescribing to patients that were not attended by him. Rather than replying directly to the College, the physician sought a judicial review of the College’s decision to suspend. In reviewing the College decision, the court concluded that in urgent circumstances the College has the jurisdiction to effect an immediate suspension of a physician’s license. The court held that the College should be given a great deal of deference in determining which circumstances constitute “an urgent matter requiring immediate action” and that their decision to suspend was reasonable. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Jurisdiction – Fairness – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness Loiselle v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, [2003] N.B.J. No. 111, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, March 12, 2003, Garnett J. Loiselle ...

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia succeeded on its appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal had erred in failing to set aside the order of the appeal judge’s decision overturning an Inquiry Committee’s finding of fact leading to a conviction for infamous conduct. The court held that the proper standard of review for findings of fact was reasonableness.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Suspensions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] S.C.J. No. 18, Supreme Court of Canada, April 3, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, ...

A minister of the United Church (“Graham”) was unsuccessful in her application seeking judicial review of a decision by the Saskatchewan Conference of the Church (the “Conference”) to conduct a formal disciplinary hearing into Graham’s actions as a minister. The court held that the Conference was entitled to proceed despite the fact that decisions from an earlier “care and oversight” review by the Presbytery had been quashed, as the Conference had concurrent jurisdiction with Presbytery to conduct such a review and defects in the prior procedure could be cured by initiating a fresh process.

28. January 2003 0
Religious organizations – Governance – Church ministers – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Hearings – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness – Natural justice – Jurisdiction Graham v. United Church of Canada, [2002] S.J. No. 596, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, November 15, 2002, Foley J. Graham was a minister of the United Church of Canada. ...