Professional Discipline and Regulation
Paliare Roland represents lawyers and paralegals, brokers, social workers, teachers, police officers and other professionals in connection with complaints, investigations and discipline proceedings taken against them by their regulating bodies or under statute. Several lawyers at the firm act as prosecutors in disciplinary and fitness-to-practise hearings for several professional regulatory agencies, primarily for the regulated health professions. Our lawyers also act on judicial review applications and other litigation relating to such discipline issues or in litigation brought against professionals.
- Lawyers
- Representative Work
-
Rob Centa, Emily Lawrence and Alysha Shore successfully represented the University of Toronto in responding to a motion for an interim injunction. The applicant sought to enjoin the University from reporting the unsuccessful results of her final assessment to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario ("CPSO") pending the outcome of her judicial review. In applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that there was no irreparable harm to the applicant and the balance of convenience favoured the University given its statutory reporting obligations to the CPSO and the broad mandate of protecting the public. The motion for an interim injunction was dismissed.
Mehar v. The University of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 1293:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2020/2020onsc1293/2020onsc1293.html?autocompleteStr=mehar%20v&autocompletePos=3
-
Spence v. University of Toronto, 2019 ONSC 1085 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hxmjw>,
Rob Centa and Emily Home successfully represented the University of Toronto in an application for judicial review brought by a graduate of the University. The Divisional Court dismissed the application and held that there was no violation of procedural fairness and the penalty of the revocation of his doctoral degree for plagiarism was reasonable.
-
Christopher Spence v. University of Toronto 2019 ONSC 1085 (CanLII):
Rob Centa and Emily Home successfully represented the University of Toronto in an application for judicial review of a complex academic discipline decision. The court held that there was no violation of procedural fairness. See: http://canlii.ca/t/hxmjw
-
Zeng v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto – Robert Centa – 2018 CarswellOnt 14162 (Div. Ct.) – Public Law/Judicial Review - Fact member of committee found in favour of applicant in past did not constitute reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed from perspective of reasonable person cognizant of all relevant facts, and nothing in conduct of hearing met test for reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant did not ask member to recuse herself and was barred from raising issue of reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant had not shown denial of procedural fairness, as he was represented at hearing and received legal advice throughout — Committee was alive to existence of applicant's disability issues and gave consideration to whether they should impact result — There was no error of fact or law that rendered committee's decision unreasonable.
-
Linda Rothstein, Jean-Claude Killey, and Daniel Rosenbluth, acted for the College of Opticians of Ontario and the College of Optometrists of Ontario in the Colleges’ successful application for an injunction preventing Essilor (which operates the website www.clearly.ca) from dispensing corrective lenses in Ontario without having a licensed or authorized person perform the dispensing. College of Optometrists of Ontario et al v. Essilor Group Canada Inc., 2018 ONSC 206.
-
In College of Nurses of Ontario v Wettlaufer, 2017 CanLII 77173 (ON CNO), Megan Shortreed acted as prosecuting counsel in revoking the nursing license of convicted serial killer nurse, Elizabeth Wettlaufer, before the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.
-
Nick Coleman represented the Ontario College of Pharmacists in Ibrahim v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, (2011) 19 Admin. L.R. (5th) 122, a decision of the Divisional Court confirming that the right of appeal from a decision of a Discipline Committee under the Health Professions Procedural Code is available only for final decisions and not interlocutory decisions of the tribunal. The related application for judicial review for a decision regarding production of third party records was also dismissed as premature in Ibrahim v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, [2011] O.J. No. 2427.
-
Chris Paliare and Karen Jones represented the College of Chiropractors in Leering v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, 2010 ONCA 87, a successful appeal of a judicial review decision of the Divisional Court, affirming that there is no exception to accommodate spouses in the zero-tolerance policy regarding health professionals who engage in sexual relations with their patients.
-
Ian Roland and Michael Fenrick represented the Canadian Police Association before the Supreme Court of Canada in Penner v. Niagara Police Services Board, a case which raises the application of the doctrine of issue estoppel in the context of police discipline.