Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant challenged the decision of a regulatory discipline committee to proceed with a rehearing despite a lengthy delay.

• The central legal issue was whether the delay constituted an abuse of process under the Blencoe and Abrametz framework.

• The court found that most of the delay was caused by the applicant’s own motions or inherent in ensuring fairness.

• The eight-year delay, although lengthy, was not deemed inordinate given the complexity of the proceedings.

• The Discipline Committee's decision not to stay the proceedings was upheld as reasonable and procedurally fair.

• The application for judicial review was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Background and procedural history

Sohail Aslam, a registered pharmacist, was the subject of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Ontario College of Pharmacists. In 2020, the Discipline Committee found him guilty of multiple counts of sexual misconduct involving a former employee. Mr. Aslam appealed that decision to the Divisional Court, which in 2023 allowed the appeal in part, dismissing most allegations but remitting one remaining allegation—referred to as the "Office Incident"—for rehearing by the Discipline Committee.

Before the rehearing could proceed, Mr. Aslam brought a motion to stay the remaining allegation on the basis that the delay in the disciplinary process—spanning nearly eight years—constituted an abuse of process. The Discipline Committee rejected that motion, finding the delay not inordinate and concluding that it had not impaired hearing fairness nor caused significant prejudice that would discredit the administration of justice. Mr. Aslam then brought an application for judicial review of the Committee’s decision.

Legal framework and issues raised

The court applied the established two-part test for abuse of process due to delay, as set out in Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) and reaffirmed in Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz. The test asks whether (1) the delay compromised the fairness of the hearing, or (2) if not, whether the delay caused significant prejudice that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Mr. Aslam argued that the eight-year delay was inordinate and had harmed his health and professional reputation. He further submitted that the delay justified a permanent stay of proceedings. The court agreed that the delay was lengthy, but emphasized that length alone is not determinative. The delay must be assessed contextually, considering the nature of the proceeding, its complexity, and who caused the delay.

Court's analysis and findings

The Divisional Court found that the Discipline Committee had correctly concluded that the delay was not inordinate. While the delay spanned several years, much of it was due to Mr. Aslam’s own motions, including a novel third-party records motion and a bid to reopen the misconduct findings. The court also noted that procedural safeguards and accommodations contributed to the timeline, as did the complexity of the matter, which involved multiple allegations and several witnesses. The delay attributable to the College itself, such as the year-long wait for the initial decision, did not outweigh these contextual factors.

Given that the delay was not deemed inordinate, the court held there was no need to consider whether it caused significant prejudice or constituted an abuse of process. As a result, the Discipline Committee’s refusal to grant a stay was upheld.

Disposition and costs

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The court ordered Mr. Aslam to pay $14,000 in costs to the Ontario College of Pharmacists. Although Mr. Aslam requested that the costs order be conditional on a finding of misconduct at the rehearing, the court declined to attach any such condition. The ruling confirms the high threshold for a stay of proceedings in professional disciplinary matters, particularly when delay is attributable to the defence itself.