Spot the difference. In Leontowicz v The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2024 CanLII 36942 (ON HPARB), (a case we have posted on previously) an applicant was denied registration by the regulator for physicians for one incident of violent sex that went beyond the consent provided and left the woman bruised. In Applicant 18 (Re), 2024 LSBC 12 (CanLII), https://lnkd.in/g9FnCwrM , an applicant was granted permission to be an articling student despite a period of extensive sexual harassment. The regulator’s decision says, in part: “Over the next months, the nature of the Applicant’s messages [on Snapchat] became more sexual and escalated to having a more violent sexual nature. Undeterred by the Complainant blocking his Snapchat account, the Applicant created four or five new anonymous Snapchat accounts and continued to send unwelcome, explicit, threatening and aggressive sexual content, including nude photos of himself.” The woman left campus and had panic attacks for months. Both applicants were students at the time of the events. Both incidents occurred years ago. Both sought professional help. Both suggested that they were now of good character. Both offered letters of reference (the medical applicant providing more such letters). Was the difference in outcomes because of the difference in professions (medicine vs law), because of the difference in the nature and extent of the apologies offered, because only one involved physical violence, and/or something else? Note that the legal applicant’s name was also not disclosed. CanLII #professionalregulation
Great day thank you for having us and we’ll look forward to a return visit next year some time.