The Kitchen Sink

Some appeals involve multiple issues. Kennedy v. College of Veterinarians, 2018 ONSC 3603, http://canlii.ca/t/hsfqb is one of those cases. In that case the Court held as follows:

1. Theft of the court reporter’s computer resulting in losing the transcript for one and a half days of the hearing did not result in an inability to hold a meaningful appeal where the notes of two panel members and independent legal counsel provided sufficient information for the Court to assess the issues.
2. Where primary disclosure has been made of the regulator’s evidence, a party seeking disclosure of the investigation file of another agency involved in the matter requires an O’Connor type of motion. The failure of the regulator to obtain the other agency’s file and disclose it is not a refusal to make primary disclosure. The fact that the practitioner had not brought a motion for the other agency’s documents was fatal to his appeal.
3. Where a party consents to the qualifications of an expert witness, they cannot later challenge the neutrality of the witness in most circumstances.
4. The regulator is not required to call an independent person as its witness at the request of the practitioner. The practitioner is in an equal position to summons the independent person.

The Court also found that the findings and reasons on credibility, penalty (i.e., revocation) and costs were reasonable.