Rarotonga, 2010

simonshields@isthatlegal.ca

Online Lawyer (Ontario)

Most Popular
Contracts / Torts / Evidence / Limitations / Tenant Plus / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / SMALL CLAIMS / SUPERIOR COURT / APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW

home / about / Little Friends Lefkada (Greece) / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Talk to the
Online Lawyer

. Mitelman v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario

In Mitelman v. Col'lege of Veterinarians of Ontario (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court cited the straightforward standard for professional misconduct':
[28] The Appellant submits that he did not go to S.L.’s home with the intention of causing her any harm. The Appellant characterizes the altercation as an “error in judgment” made by both parties, and states that it did not rise to the level of professional misconduct.

[29] The Appellant submits that the proper test for determining what rises to the level of misconduct was outlined in Barrington v. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.[4] In Barrington, the Court of Appeal confirmed that such a finding requires that the member a) failed to perform his or her professional duties in accordance with the standards established by the profession, and b) that this failure is “significant”.[5]


CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.