|
Reasons - Copied Reasons (2). Um v. College of Naturopaths of Ontario
In Um v. College of Naturopaths of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a combined RHPA appeal, this from professional misconduct rulings by the Discipline Committee of the College of Naturopaths of Ontario that alternatively suspended, and revoked, Certificates of Registration.
Here the court considers a 'copied reasons' issue, here advanced in a bias argument:[121] Gannon applied for judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission regarding disciplinary proceeding against him. One issue was the propriety of copying and pasting passages from unrelated decisions into the decision regarding Mr. Gannon. In Gannon, the Court applied the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre.[45] In Cojocaru, the trial judge’s reasons consisted of 368 paragraphs, of which 321 paragraphs were copied from counsel’s submissions. The Supreme Court stated:[51] The question is whether the extensive copying from the plaintiffs' submissions requires the trial judge's decision to be set aside. The starting point is the presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality. To reframe the matter in the words of Teskey, the onus is on the party challenging the decision to show that a reasonable person apprised of all the circumstances would conclude that the judge did not put his mind to the issues and decide them impartially and independently, as his duty required. The bar is high, and cogent evidence is required to hurdle it. The reviewing court should not approach copying from a sceptical perspective, but from the perspective imposed by the presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality. In deciding whether the presumption is rebutted the court should consider the nature of the case, what was copied, the extent of the copying, how it functions in the reasons as a whole, and any other relevant circumstances. [Emphasis added.] ....
[124] Counsel for the appellants repeat the submission that both Panels failed to “address multiple key arguments” including the written submissions on the SOP issue. Relying upon Cojocaru, the appellants submit that the incorporation of materials of others would lead to the conclusion that the Panel did not put its mind to the issues such that the presumption of judicial integrity is rebutted and that the decision should be set aside.
Discussion
[125] First of all, applying a Cojocaru type analysis, the Prytula decision consisted of 122 paragraphs and the Um decision consisted of 81 paragraphs after excluding the allegations and law sections which were appropriately the same or identical. Notably, the summary of the evidence was not the same – 19 ½ pages in the Prytula decision and 10 ½ pages in the Um decision.
[126] There were also paragraphs that were the same or similar in the decisions dealing with the motions brought by the appellants:a. 2 paras. same/similar dealing with the facts and law in the s. 8 section;
b. 2 paras. same/similar dealing with the facts and law in the lack of authority section;
c. 2 paras. same/similar dealing with the law and arguments in the s. 11 section; and
d. 5 paras. same/similar dealing with the law and arguments in the s. 7 section. [127] As noted, identical motions were brought by the appellants’ representative before each Panel and responded to by the same counsel for the College and written submissions were filed. As the Um Panel observed, “most of the examples of similar language…can be found in submissions filed by the parties in this hearing on the argument of the motions and in closing submissions.” Those submissions are not in evidence.
[128] These four motions all involved complex legal arguments involving the Charter and jurisdiction. As instructed by Cojocaru, I am required to consider the nature of the case, what was copied, the extent of the copying and how it functions in the reasons as a whole. That some paragraphs are the same or similar in the decisions when the issues, arguments, and written submissions were the same does not create an appearance of bias or lack of independence.
[129] As discussed above, there was extensive overlap between these matters, including in the allegations, steps taken including motions, the witnesses and other evidence, counsel and the submissions made. This is relevant context under Cojocaru.
[130] The three comments that Dr. Um states do not apply to him have no bearing on any of the decisions made by the Um Panel. The evidence about the use of the search warrant forms was before both panels and I find no error in the conclusion reached by both Panels with respect to the search warrants. The error with respect to the contravention of the compounding standard was corrected by the Um Panel at the beginning of the penalty stage. The reference to “may be trained… in other jurisdictions” is explained by the reasons of the Um Panel which confirms that the reference is to “may be trained”, not trained.
[131] In short, in considering the relevant factors under Cojocaru and how the overlap functions in the reasons as a whole, none of the passages have any impact on the correctness of the decisions made by the Um Panel. Nor do they create an appearance of bias or lack of independence.
|
