Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Appellant is an optometrist. He has practised optometry in Ontario and Prince Edward Island since the late 1970s. In 1994, Prince Edward Island’s Optometry Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. O-6, changed to require, inter alia, proof of 12 credit hours of continuing education in the preceding year or 36 hours in the preceding three years before a license to practice optometry can be renewed. The amendments came into force on July 8, 1995.

The Appellant received his licence in 1995, but he failed to provide the Respondent with proof that he had obtained four hours of continuing education in 1994 by January 1996 and the Respondent suspended his licence. The Appellant continued to practise optometry in Prince Edward Island until July 1997, when the Respondent issued public notice that his license had expired on January 1, 1996.

In late 1995, the Appellant sought legal advice on this matter, but it was not until October 2000, that he became aware of his counsel’s failure to take legal action. He immediately met with the College Registrar to explain the problem and to provide copi1es of his continuing education courses to date.

In November 2000, the Appellant applied by letter for reinstatement of his license. In March 2001, the Respondent requested the Appellant’s patience and stated that it was dealing with his application as quickly as possible. On April 12, 2001, the Appellant filed an application in the Trial Division for, inter alia, mandamus “directing the respondent to issue its decision on the Appellant’s application for licensure” and for an order directing the Respondent to issue a license to the Appellant.

In April 2001, the Respondent sent the Appellant an application form he completed and returned in early May. The Respondent requested more information, but the Appellant believed that he had submitted what was needed. In September 2001 he again asked for a decision. On November 26, 2001, the Respondent sent a letter requiring that conditions be met.

On November 21, 2001, the Appellant submitted an amended notice asking for an extension of time for the filing of the mandamus application. In June, 2002, the trial judge denied the extension of time with respect to the 1996 decision and dismissed the application concerning it as being out of time. He dismissed the application with respect to the 2001 decision on its merits.

On appeal, it was agreed that the judicial review application had been intended to request that the court overturn the decision to deny the Appellant his license in 1996 and the decision setting out the conditions to be met before a license would issue in 2001. The request for mandamus was only valid prior to the Respondent’s decision in November 2001. The Appellant also moved to admit new evidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the extension of time, but denied the appeal in all other respects.