2017 Harvest

2017 Harvest

Monday, July 25, 2011

Appeal Tribunal rules Ontario vet resigned, not suspended


Dr. Ken Allan, of Perth, Ontario, was a licensed practising veterinarian from 1963 until September 19, 2009. In early January 2010, he applied for a Class 1 Licence under the Livestock Medicines Act (the Act) and was issued a licence on January 8, 2010. On May 14, 2010, the Director appointed under the Act issued a letter to Dr. Allan provisionally suspending his Class 1 Licence and advising that a hearing would be scheduled to determine whether his licence would be further suspended or revoked. On July 7, 2010, the Director appointed under the Act held a hearing to consider whether to further suspend or revoke Dr. Allan's licence.  Following a hearing in Dr. Allan's absence, the Director made various findings including a finding that Dr. Allan had sold livestock medicines other than from his place of business and had obstructed Ministry inspectors in the performance of their duties.

On the basis of those findings, the Director revoked Dr. Allan's licence under the Act.  He appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which held a hearing de novo (meaning that the Appeal Tribunal heard all of the evidence as if it were the Director hearing the case fresh).  The Tribunal found that Dr. Allan had actually given up his licence before he received notice of it having been revoked by the Director.  Further, the Tribunal found that the Ministry had failed to provide Dr. Allan with a warning letter in accordance with its policy in advance of seeking the revocation of his licence.  For that and other related reasons, the Tribunal ruled that the original hearing by the Director should not have taken place and the findings made there must be overruled.

After considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal ruled as follows:
  1. That Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr. Allan's voluntary resignation from the licensing system, therefore the Tribunal will not order the reinstatement of his licence.
  2. That all prescription and livestock medicines seized shall be returned to Dr. Allan; and, if they are expired, have been destroyed, or disposed of, then he shall be compensated for all said livestock medicines and prescription medicines.
  3. That Dr. Allan's personal items and written records removed during the execution of the search warrant be returned forthwith.
  4. That the Tribunal accepts the evidence that Dr. Allan voluntarily resigned from the licensing system before his licence was suspended or revoked, and therefore the Ministry shall not consider Dr. Allan's voluntary resignation from the licensing
    system negatively, should he reapply for a licence under the Act.
Read the decision at: Ken Allan vs. Director.