A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal has provided additional guidance about making findings on credibility. In R. v Esquivel-Benitez, 2020 ONCA 160,
How should a regulator respond to a practitioner making repeated public accusations that it is acting with dishonesty and bad faith and was abusing its
The Supreme Court of Canada made an important decision changing the way courts will review the actions or decisions of administrative bodies, including regulators of
The Ontario Court of Appeal has rejected the proposition that courts should closely scrutinize the general transparency, accountability and adequacy of funding of delegated regulators:
In the high profile case of Howe v Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, 2019 NSCA 81, http://canlii.ca/t/j3085 a lawyer was found at discipline to have “been
Procedural missteps by a regulator can often be cured. In Volochay v College of Massage Therapist, 2019 ONSC 5718, http://canlii.ca/t/j2np8, serious allegations of sexual abuse
When a tribunal makes an erroneous factual finding a court will review the significance of the error in determining whether to set aside the decision.
To establish a cause of action against a regulator for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has to, obviously, plead and establish malice. In Bahadar v Real
Administrative mistakes happen. The challenge then is to figure out an appropriate response. In Hilson v 1336365 Alberta Ltd., 2019 ONCA 653, <http://canlii.ca/t/j1x45>, three members
Establishing unauthorized practice can be difficult as many clients are happy to receive the service or, at the very least, are reluctant to testify about