Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A professional discipline tribunal found Ahmad guilty of unprofessional conduct for fabricating emails in regulatory proceedings

• The tribunal's penalty included a one-month suspension and a reprimand, which Ahmad appealed as excessive

• Ahmad denied fabricating the evidence and claimed the tribunal’s findings were unreasonable and unfair

• The Divisional Court upheld the tribunal's finding, ruling it was supported by clear and compelling circumstantial evidence

• The Court confirmed the tribunal's jurisdiction and found no procedural unfairness or bias in its decision-making

• The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the penalty as appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances

Facts of the case

This case involves a judicial review of a disciplinary decision by the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) against the applicant, Ahmad. Ahmad, a licensed engineer, had a history of disputes with PEO dating back to 2017. The issue that led to formal discipline proceedings arose from his communications with PEO’s Complaints Committee in 2019, during which Ahmad submitted emails that he claimed showed communications with PEO staff from years prior.

The Discipline Committee found that these emails were fabricated. The email headers showed inconsistencies, including a domain address that did not exist at the time the email was supposedly sent. The committee also noted discrepancies in Ahmad’s explanations and timelines. Based on this evidence, it concluded that he knowingly submitted false documents to a regulatory body, conduct it deemed dishonourable and unbecoming of a professional engineer under Regulation 941, s. 72(2)(j).

Tribunal’s decision and penalty

The Discipline Committee imposed a reprimand and a one-month suspension of Ahmad’s licence to practise engineering. Ahmad challenged the decision before the Ontario Divisional Court, arguing that the committee had erred in its findings and that the penalty was disproportionate. He also raised claims of procedural unfairness and bias, asserting that the tribunal misapplied legal standards and failed to consider exculpatory explanations.

Divisional Court’s review and outcome

The Divisional Court reviewed the decision under the reasonableness standard, as established by the Supreme Court in Vavilov. It held that the tribunal’s conclusion was well grounded in the evidence and justified through logical reasoning. The court accepted the tribunal’s reliance on circumstantial and documentary evidence and noted that tribunals are entitled to draw reasonable inferences in disciplinary contexts.

Ahmad’s arguments about procedural unfairness and bias were rejected. The court found no breach of procedural fairness and no reasonable apprehension of bias. It noted that Ahmad was given opportunities to respond, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. His failure to substantiate an alternative explanation for the email irregularities further undermined his position.

On the issue of penalty, the court held that a one-month suspension was within the range of reasonable disciplinary outcomes, particularly where the misconduct involved dishonesty in dealings with a regulatory body. The penalty served the public interest by upholding professional integrity and public confidence in regulatory oversight.

Accordingly, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The Divisional Court’s decision reinforces the importance of honesty and integrity in dealings with self-regulatory bodies and affirms the broad discretion of professional discipline tribunals to sanction misconduct that undermines regulatory processes.