Articles
<< back to all ArticlesEye On Regulation
the case
In Van Arem v College of Veterinarians of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 7072, two veterinarians were found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct by failing to keep proper medical records. One of the veterinarians was additionally found to have failed to give clients proper fee estimates and failed to document his clients’ informed consent to medical procedures being performed.
Prior to the disciplinary hearing taking place, the veterinarians made offers to settle that involved longer suspensions than they had received at the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing. Notwithstanding that fact, the veterinarians were ordered to pay $24,634.95 and $36,449.92 in costs, respectively. Both members appealed the costs orders to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, arguing, in part, that the Discipline Committee failed to adequately consider the settlement offers.
The Court found that the Discipline Committee properly considered the offers and admissions made by the veterinarians. While the offers involved lengthier suspensions and admissions of unprofessional conduct, the members never agreed to facts that would support the findings of unprofessional conduct made by the Discipline Committee. As a result, the Court found it was not reasonable to characterize the settlement offers as “better” than what the Discipline Committee found.
our two cents for free
Regulators and members should carefully consider the impact that settlement offers may have on the issue of costs. The Van Arem decision insinuates that, where appropriate, settlement offers may be taken into consideration by a hearing tribunal when assessing the appropriateness and quantum of costs. However, the substance of that settlement offer and what the member is prepared to admit are of key importance.
question
Do you have any open settlement offers to reconsider in light of Van Arem?
Eye on Regulation is RMRF’s monthly newsletter for the professional regulatory community. Each month we offer:
- A Case: a brief summary of a recent and relevant case;
- Our Two Cents for Free: practical insight inspired by the files on our desks right now; and
- A Question: something to get you thinking about ways to enhance your work.
This newsletter is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.
