|
Professionals - Veterinarians. Covant v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario
In Covant v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered (with leave) a further appeal from a s.35 Veterinarians Act Divisional Court appeal, which was in turn an appeal from a College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO) Discipline Committee's order that the appellant had "engaged in professional misconduct by re-selling large quantities of veterinary drugs to human pharmacies, contrary to a newly amended regulation".
In these quotes the court considers the assessment of costs by the Discipline Committee (for which authority is spelled out in the Veterinarians Act):[79] I reach the same conclusion on the costs award. Section 30(6.1) of the Act provides as follows:(6.1) In an appropriate case, the Discipline Committee may make an order requiring a member or former member who is found guilty of professional misconduct or of serious neglect by the Committee to pay all or part of the following costs and expenses:
1. The College’s legal costs and expenses.
2. The College’s costs and expenses incurred in investigating the matter.
3. The College’s costs and expenses incurred in conducting the hearing. [Emphasis added.] [80] The Committee commands a wide discretion in determining whether the College’s costs should be paid. The Committee reduced what might have otherwise been a greater costs award based on its assessment of the role of both parties in lengthening the proceedings. This was a fair approach. The costs award was reasonable in all of the circumstances. . Covant v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario
In Covant v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered (with leave) a further appeal from a s.35 Veterinarians Act Divisional Court appeal, which was in turn an appeal from a College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO) Discipline Committee's order that the appellant had "engaged in professional misconduct by re-selling large quantities of veterinary drugs to human pharmacies, contrary to a newly amended regulation".
In these quotes the court the standard of review on an appeal of a professional penalty, here veterinary:(c) Discussion
[77] I see nothing clearly unreasonable, demonstrably unfit, or representing a substantial and marked departure in the Committee’s penalty decision, as upheld by the Divisional Court: see Peirovy, at paras. 56-57; Mitelman, at para. 41. Neither the reasons of the Committee nor the Divisional Court reveal an error in principle.
[78] The most serious component of the sanction was the suspension from practice for a one-month period. Given the nature of Dr. Covant’s conduct, and his ongoing conduct in the face of numerous red flags, the sanction was appropriate. In imposing the sanction that it did, the Committee also intended to deter other veterinarians from engaging in similar conduct, and at the same time, maintain the public’s confidence in the ability of the College to regulate its members. There is no error in this approach. . Covant v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario
In Covant v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered (with leave) a further appeal from a s.35 Veterinarians Act Divisional Court appeal, which was in turn an appeal from a College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO) Discipline Committee's order that the appellant had "engaged in professional misconduct by re-selling large quantities of veterinary drugs to human pharmacies, contrary to a newly amended regulation".
In these quotes the court reviews some recent amendments to the law of drug use (resale) in the veterinarian profession:B. BACKGROUND
[4] Dispensing drugs is a common aspect of veterinary practice. It is strictly regulated by “Part III – Drugs”, of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093 (“the Regulation”), passed under the Veterinarians Act, R.S.O., c. V.3. (“the Act”).
[5] Typically, veterinarians obtain drugs from manufacturers or wholesalers and then dispense them directly to their patients, through their owners. The Regulation provides detailed requirements for prescribing drugs, with stringent record-keeping obligations. The general rule is that veterinarians may only administer and dispense drugs for their own patients: see s. 33(1)(a) of the Regulation.
[6] This case engages an exception. A veterinarian in Ontario may re-sell veterinary drugs to another veterinarian or to a human pharmacy. Previously, the Regulation placed no restrictions on these re-sales. At that time, s. 33(2)(d) of the Regulation read:No member shall, […]
(d) knowingly dispense a drug for resale except to another member or a pharmacist. [7] On November 24, 2015, s. 33(2)(d) was amended by O.Reg. 233/15, s. 23(3). Section 33(2)(d) now provides:No member shall,
(d) knowingly dispense a drug for resale except where the drug is dispensed to another member or a pharmacist in reasonably limited quantities in order to address a temporary shortage experienced by that other member or pharmacist. [Emphasis added.] . Ontario College of Veterinarians of Ontario v. Dr. Ackerman
In Ontario College of Veterinarians of Ontario v. Dr. Ackerman (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court stated the standard of review for a tribunal's penalty decision, here one for veterinary discipline:[43] In this case, there is no dispute that the test for reviewing the penalty is whether the Committee made an error in principle or the penalty was clearly unfit: Mittleman, at para. 41. For this court to intervene, the CVO must establish that the Committee’s decision was clearly unreasonable, demonstrably unfit or represented a substantial and marked departure from penalties in similar cases: 2099065 Ontario Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2021 ONSC 4319, at para. 61. . Walia v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario
In Walia v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court cited a Court of Appeal case that held that professional discipline itself was not a Charter issue: [17] In Mussani v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2004 CanLII 48653 (ON CA), [2004] 74 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code were constitutional. In its decision, the court found that it is self-evident that the revocation of a health professional’s certificate of registration is a serious and even a draconian measure. Nonetheless, serious disciplinary measures, even draconian ones, are not prohibited by the Charter. The weight of authority is that there is no constitutional right to practice a profession unfettered by the applicable rules and standards that regulate said profession. The court concluded that there was no constitutionally-protected right to practice a profession. We have similarly concluded that Dr. Walia’s challenge to the constitutionality of the College by-laws is not a tenable one. . Mitelman v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario
In Mitelman v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court cited the straightforward standard for professional misconduct:[28] The Appellant submits that he did not go to S.L.’s home with the intention of causing her any harm. The Appellant characterizes the altercation as an “error in judgment” made by both parties, and states that it did not rise to the level of professional misconduct.
[29] The Appellant submits that the proper test for determining what rises to the level of misconduct was outlined in Barrington v. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.[4] In Barrington, the Court of Appeal confirmed that such a finding requires that the member a) failed to perform his or her professional duties in accordance with the standards established by the profession, and b) that this failure is “significant”.[5]
|
