Licence suspended for 10 months based on professional misconduct findings
The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently dismissed an appeal by a practitioner who sued the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario after the suspension of her licence.
The appellant in this case was registered with the College. The appeal court rejected her claims that her action was improperly dismissed and that the suspension of her licence should have been stayed pending appeal.
In the underlying proceeding, the College determined that the appellant committed professional misconduct and suspended her license for 10 months. She appealed the regulator’s decision to the Divisional Court.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant then moved for leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. She also did not succeed at this stage.
Following these unfavourable rulings, the appellant brought a statement of claim alleging defamation against the College and numerous individuals holding positions within it. She also commenced an action alleging professional misconduct against the regulator’s counsel.
The respondents moved to dismiss the appellant’s action under r. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, which allowed the dismissal of frivolous or vexatious claims.
The motion judge dismissed the action. The judge ruled that the action amounted to a collateral attack on the College's decision and that issues of professional misconduct involving lawyers fell not within the court and instead within the jurisdiction of the Law Society of Ontario.
In Yan v. Pritchard-Sobhani, 2024 ONCA 612, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondents. The court ordered the appellant to pay $5,000 to an individual respondent and $2,000 to the College, inclusive of all disbursements and applicable taxes.
On appeal, the appellant alleged that the motion judge should have given her the opportunity to explain her side in this case and to provide substantial support to back it up.
The appeal court disagreed and cited r. 2.1.01(3), which allowed it to dismiss actions without written submissions if it deemed the claim frivolous or meritless on its face. The appeal court also cited the decision in Amikwabi v. Pope Francis, 2022 ONCA 236 to support its ruling.
The appellant also argued that the court should have stayed the suspension of her licence during the appeal process. She invoked r. 63.01(1). However, the court clarified that this rule only applied to orders involving the payment of money and not to professional suspensions.
