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.

Charter of Rights – Human Rights – Law of Professions – Issue estoppel – Whether an answer to a discrimination issue under the Charter can be said to determine the discrimination under the Human Rights Code – Whether questions raised under the different grounds of discrimination are different questions for the purpose of issue estoppel – Whether an answer to an ultra vires question under a regular statute also answers a discrimination issue under the Charter and the Code – Whether there should be a “could have been argued” condition attached to the same question test – Whether the concept of “reframing” should be part of the same question test – If the preconditions are met, whether the court’s discretion should be exercised when fresh, new evidence, previously unavailable, conclusively impeaches the original results – Whether there is any fixed form of discriminatory impact for the claimant to show in order to meet the test for advancing a claim under s. 15 of the Charter – Even if the preconditions are met, whether the court’s discretion should be exercised when there was miscommunication between the client and his counsel and the application of issue estoppel would work injustice – Even if the preconditions were met, whether the application of issue estoppel is contrary to the principle of constitutional supremacy – Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18 – Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 27.

The individual and corporate Applicants are alleged to have engaged in various capacities in the practice of traditional Chinese medicine (“TCM”) contrary to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (“RHPA”) and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006 (“TCMA”). The Respondent, College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario (the “College”) is formally established as the regulator in Ontario of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists. The corporate Applicants are alleged to have breached the RHPA by falsely holding themselves out as bodies that regulate, under statutory authority, individuals who practice TCM and acupuncture in Ontario. They are also alleged to have started a registration process that purports to authorize individuals to practice TCM and acupuncture in Ontario. The individual Applicants are alleged to have breached the TCMA by engaging in the unauthorized practice of TCM and by using prohibited titles and designations, namely, the title “Doctor”. The College sought declarations that the Applicants breached the governing legislation and requested permanent injunctions enjoining them from further breaching the legislation.

The application judge in this case applied the principle of issue estoppel to preclude the Applicants from using this case to re-litigate the constitutionality of the Registration Regulation. The College was granted declarations that the Applicants breached provisions of the RHPA and the TCMA and the Applicants were permanently enjoined from holding themselves out as bodies that regulate, under statutory authority, individuals who practice traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture in Ontario or from holding themselves out as members. The Applicants’ appeal was dismissed.