Chiropodist suspended for four months for inadequate record-keeping and failing to meet orthotics prescription standards.
The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for failing to meet practice standards and keep adequate records when prescribing orthotics.
The College and the registrant presented a joint submission on penalty, which included a net four-month suspension, coursework, practice supervision, and a reprimand.
The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding that the proposed penalty was proportionate to similar cases and did not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute.
The registrant was also ordered to pay $23,000 in costs.
Podiatrist reprimanded and ordered to pay costs after failing to disclose civil lawsuit on renewal forms.
The registrant, a podiatrist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to disclose a civil lawsuit against him on his annual College renewal forms.
He resigned from the College and undertook never to reapply or practise in any jurisdiction.
The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $13,500 in costs, finding the proposed penalty was not contrary to the public interest.
Speech-language pathologist suspended three months for unauthorized access to patient records and time theft.
The registrant, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for improperly accessing the medical records of over 100 patients and committing time theft by claiming time she did not work.
The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it did not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.
The Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension, a reprimand, terms and conditions including coaching and monitoring, repayment of the stolen time to the hospital, and $2,000 in costs.
Joint penalty submission accepted for criminal misconduct involving non-consensual recording.
The College prosecuted a discipline case arising from the registrant's criminal guilty plea for recording images and videos of an individual without knowledge or consent.
The registrant admitted professional misconduct based on a finding of guilt for an offence relevant to suitability to practise and conduct unbecoming a psychotherapist.
Applying the stringent joint-submission standard, the tribunal held the proposed penalty was not so unhinged from the circumstances as to bring the discipline system into disrepute.
The tribunal imposed a two-month suspension, ethics-related educational terms, a reprimand, and costs.
Indefinite adjournment granted where the registrant could not participate for health reasons.
The College moved for an indefinite adjournment of a professional discipline proceeding on the basis that the registrant was medically unable to participate and there was no indication of future capacity.
The tribunal granted the motion, finding adjournment appropriate in light of the serious health condition and noting that public protection remained intact because the registrant no longer held a certificate of registration and could not practise.
The tribunal also ordered the registrar to post on the public register the fact of the notice of hearing, the misconduct allegation described in the order, and the fact of the indefinite adjournment.
The reasons preserved transparency while leaving open the College’s right to restart the proceeding if reinstatement were ever sought.
Motion to remove College counsel dismissed; no rule prevents prosecutor from advising at earlier stages.
The registrant brought a motion to remove the College's counsel, arguing that counsel acting as prosecutor before the Discipline Committee must not have advised the Registrar, investigators, or the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) at earlier stages.
The registrant also alleged inappropriate conduct by counsel in previous litigation.
The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding no legal principle preventing prosecuting counsel from advising the College at earlier stages.
The Committee noted that the Divisional Court had previously rejected similar arguments from the registrant and found no evidence of impropriety by counsel.
Registrant suspended for one month and reprimanded for inadequate record keeping following a joint submission.
The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct proceedings against the respondent for failing to keep proper records of her speech-language pathology services.
The respondent admitted to the misconduct.
The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.
The respondent was ordered to serve a one-month suspension, complete an individualized mentorship program and a medical record-keeping course, receive a reprimand, and pay $5,000 in costs.
Speech-language pathologist suspended for one month for failing to comply with a practice monitoring order.
The registrant, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to comply with a previous order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring practice monitoring.
The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it did not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.
The registrant was reprimanded, suspended for one month, subjected to permanent practice restrictions regarding dysphagia intervention and acute care settings, and ordered to pay $2,000 in costs.
Atheism is a protected creed; school board policy allowing only Gideon Bibles discriminated against atheists.
The applicants, who identify as atheists, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against them on the basis of creed by permitting only the Gideons to distribute religious literature (the New Testament) to grade five students.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held that atheism falls within the definition of 'creed' under the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the board's original policy, which allowed only one religious group to distribute texts, was discriminatory.
Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the board's revised policy, which ostensibly allowed other groups to distribute materials but was applied inconsistently and restrictively, also failed to comply with the Code.
The Tribunal ordered the board to cease distributing religious publications unless it developed a new, non-discriminatory policy.
Human rights application not moot despite funding approval and withdrawal of child protection proceedings.
The applicant, a child with significant disabilities, alleged discrimination based on disability and family status regarding the funding of his treatment and a child protection application seeking Crown wardship.
After the child protection application was withdrawn and funding was approved, the respondents sought to dismiss the human rights application as moot.
The Tribunal found the application was not moot, as there remained a live controversy over whether the past actions were discriminatory and caused the applicant damages, including injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Firefighters' age discrimination applications dismissed; employer not required to develop individual cardiac testing regime upon general request.
The applicants, a group of firefighters, alleged age discrimination after being required to retire at age 60.
They argued that the respondents failed to accommodate them by not developing an individual testing regime to assess their cardiac risk, relying on an exception discussed in previous jurisprudence.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to develop a testing regime upon a general request, and the applicants had not presented evidence of an exceptionally low cardiac risk to trigger an individual exception.
The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Human rights applications allowed to proceed; prior police complaints process did not appropriately deal with substance.
The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicants' prior public complaints under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.
The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Figliola and Penner.
The Tribunal held that section 45.1 should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where doing so would result in an affront to basic principles of fairness.
Given the lack of personal remedies in the police disciplinary process and the broader policy implications, the Tribunal found it would be unfair to preclude the applicants from pursuing their human rights claims.
The respondents' requests to dismiss the applications were denied, and the applications were allowed to proceed.
Consent order amended to allow non-IBI parts of human rights complaint to proceed.
The parties requested an amendment to a May 9, 2012 consent order that had finally disposed of the human rights complaint.
Due to an error by counsel, the order and minutes of settlement did not reflect the parties' agreement that parts of the complaint not relating to intensive behavioural intervention (IBI) would proceed.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend the order to allow the non-IBI parts of the complaint to proceed, waived the 30-day delay for making such a request, and set a schedule for next steps, including addressing the complainant's capacity to conduct litigation now that he is over 18.
Fictional human rights application mocking fast-food burger names dismissed as an abuse of process.
The applicant filed a human rights application using a fictional name, alleging that the respondent's 'burger family' menu names were discriminatory and degrading to non-traditional families.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide identification.
The applicant refused, admitting the application was a parody intended to mock human rights systems, and requested to proceed under a pseudonym.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process, outside its jurisdiction, and that the applicant failed to provide identification.
Human rights applications for funding of transgender health services dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicants, male-to-female transsexuals, alleged discrimination because of sex and gender identity due to the government's failure to fund laser hair removal, voice therapy, and breast augmentation.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the expert report provided by the applicants did not establish that the requested services were medically necessary or fell within the purpose of OHIP funding.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Board finds CAS failed to communicate complaint follow-ups to mother, but makes no order as explanations were subsequently provided.
The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.
She alleged that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding three incidents involving the foster family and one incident involving alleged racist comments by a Society employee.
The Board found that the Society failed to properly communicate its follow-up actions to the applicant regarding two of the foster family incidents and the employee incident.
However, because the Society provided the necessary explanations to the applicant after she filed her complaint with the Board, the Board declined to make any orders.
Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.