Author: Julie Maciura

There are certain core principles for tribunals when they write reasons for their decisions. The bad news is that it is easy to violate those

Ontario’s Divisional Court has again affirmed the deference shown towards disciplinary decisions on sanction (penalty). In Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Mourid, 2023 ONSC 1221

Regulators investigate complaints. Many regulators investigate a lot of complaints. A recurring issue is how thorough those investigations need to be. Courts have repeatedly said

Can a registrant rely on mitigating factors that they earlier argued do not exist? That issue arose in College of Early Childhood Educators v. Phillips,

Committees that screen complaints and investigations do not make findings of wrongdoing or impose disciplinary sanctions. As such, a lower degree of procedural fairness is

While the Board of a regulatory body is quite different from a municipal Council, some analogies can be made in terms of their governance responsibilities.

If a registrant faces a serious allegation, should they be able to achieve a reduced sanction by obstructing the investigation? In Chimistes (Ordre professionnel des)

Complaints screening committees, unlike true adjudicative committees, sometimes directly engage in negotiations with registrants. For example, they might propose a remedial disposition, the acceptance of

The concept of “incompetence” on the part of a practitioner (“registrant”) for the purposes of disciplinary action has not been frequently discussed by the courts.

Discipline sanctions must not be clearly unfit (at least in contested cases; a different test applies where there is a joint submission on penalty). In