Ontario Civil


Public would be put at risk if stay granted

Committee concluded to expose patients to unacceptable risks for elective procedure was inconsistent with acceptable practice. Committee released penalty order. Committee ordered two-year suspension of appellant’s certificate of registration and imposed terms and conditions on certificate for indefinite period. Appellant brought motion for stay of penalty order of committee pending appeal from committee’s decision and penalty order. Appellant sought order allowing appellant to perform and/or supervise no-surgical cosmetic procedures. Motion was dismissed. Appellant did not show appellant would suffer irreparable harm of nature to warrant stay. Balance of convenience did not favour appellant. Public would be put at risk if stay was granted.

Yazdanfar v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

(Apr. 24, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Sanderson J., File No. 34/12) 214 A.C.W.S. (3d) 995 (17 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?