Case information

Charter of rights — Fundamental justice — Law of professions — Discipline — Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Regulatory boards — Procedure — Natural justice — Applicant found guilty of professional misconduct by disciplinary committee of provincial regulatory body — Courts upholding finding of misconduct and penalty imposed, and denying leave to appeal — Applicant commencing action against regulatory body, alleging defamation and professional misconduct — Motion judge issuing summary judgment and dismissing claim — Court of Appeal dismissing appeal — Whether regulatory body breached applicant’s equality rights under s. 15 of Charter — Whether regulatory body’s investigator violated applicant’s rights under s. 7 of Charter — Whether it was illegal to require applicant to respond immediately to first investigation report — Whether it was illegal to fail to provide notice to applicant of investigation visits and procedures — Whether regulatory body’s investigative procedures were unlawful or unethical — Whether it was illegal to commence new investigation of applicant during appeal process — Whether fine imposed was reasonable, and whether overall disciplinary judgment was balanced and logical — Whether suspension of licence with no stay pending appeal breached judicial rules of procedure — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 2.1.01, 63.01.

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 applicant is a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. The respondent is a provincial regulatory body that governs this practice. A panel of the Discipline Committee of the regulatory body found that the applicant engaged in various forms of professional misconduct, and issued a penalty, including a suspension of her licence. Parallel to her appeal of the disciplinary decision, the applicant also brought an action against the regulatory body and its individual employees or office holders, alleging defamation and professional misconduct. The respondents sought summary dismissal of the action, pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the action pursuant to r. 2.1.01(1). A three-member panel at the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal from the motion judge’s decision.