Luisa Ritacca

The Registrant admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain infection prevention and control (IPAC) standards at her dental clinic and for failing to cooperate with practice monitoring and public health inspections.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension, terms and conditions on her certificate of registration including clinical supervision, and $12,000 in costs.

The Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the Registrant for abruptly closing his practice without notifying patients, failing to retain or transfer patient records, and completely ignoring the College's investigation.

The Discipline Committee found that the Registrant abandoned his practice and relocated to Florida, actively evading the College's attempts to contact him.

Finding the Registrant ungovernable and noting the complete absence of mitigating factors, the Committee revoked his certificate of registration, ordered a reprimand, and awarded costs to the College.

The Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario held a discipline hearing regarding a dentist who abruptly closed his orthodontic practice without notifying patients, making provisions for their continuing care, or transferring their records.

The dentist also failed to respond to numerous communications from the College and relocated to Florida.

The Discipline Committee found the dentist guilty of professional misconduct, concluding that his actions demonstrated a complete disregard for his professional obligations and a pattern of ungovernability.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of his certificate of registration, a reprimand, and costs of $9,951.79.

The Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the Registrant for abruptly closing his practice without notifying patients, failing to retain or transfer patient records, and completely ignoring the College's investigation.

The Registrant did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Registrant committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain standards of practice, failing to keep records, failing to reply to College inquiries, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, or unethical conduct.

The Committee revoked the Registrant's certificate of registration, ordered a reprimand, and awarded costs of $13,511.29 to the College, citing his complete abandonment of his practice and pattern of ungovernability.

The Registrant, a dentist, admitted to professional misconduct including practising dentistry while his certificate of registration was suspended, sexually abusing a patient by engaging in a concurrent treating and sexual relationship, and providing inaccurate information to the College regarding the timeline of that relationship.

The Discipline Committee accepted the admissions and found the Registrant committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the mandatory revocation of the Registrant's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, $10,000 in costs, and the posting of $5,000 in security for patient therapy funding.

The College brought a motion to adjourn two discipline hearings against the Registrant sine die.

The Registrant had resigned his membership and signed an undertaking agreeing never to apply or re-apply for registration as a dentist in Canada.

The allegations included sexual abuse of a patient and criminal convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the resignation and undertaking permanently removed the Registrant from practice, thereby protecting the public interest and avoiding the costs and potential harm of a full hearing.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions to multiple years of false or misleading dental billing, excessive periodontal charges, inflated laboratory fees, and deficient record-keeping affecting ten patient files.

The panel found all five allegations proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 25, 28, 31, 33, and 35 of s. 2 of Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the public-interest test for joint submissions on penalty, the panel accepted a joint penalty submission despite disagreement over some mitigating facts.

The panel imposed a reprimand, a four-month suspension, practice restrictions during suspension, required courses, two years of practice monitoring, and $10,000 in costs.

Professional discipline decision arising from admitted misconduct in three separate notices of hearing involving a prohibited business relationship with an unregistered clinic operator, substandard endodontic care and inducements to withdraw a complaint, and sexual abuse and boundary violations involving patients.

The panel held that the admissions and agreed statement of facts established conflict of interest, fee sharing, failure to maintain standards of practice, abuse of a patient, sexual abuse of a patient, and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the joint-submission public-interest standard, the panel accepted the proposed penalty and rejected a request to convert the mandatory oral reprimand into a written reprimand.

The registrant’s certificate was revoked immediately, with a reprimand, reimbursement and security orders, a $35,000 fine, and $10,000 in costs.

The College prosecuted a dentist for administering unauthorized and improper sedation to ten minor patients, including three under the age of three, while lacking the requisite authorization and specialty training and, on many occasions, after his minimal sedation authorization had been cancelled.

The panel accepted admissions that the registrant treated patients beyond his competence, contravened the sedation standard of practice and recordkeeping requirements, and engaged in conduct reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical.

Applying the joint-submission public-interest standard, the panel accepted an agreed penalty that included a reprimand, a three-month suspension, remedial recordkeeping education, practice monitoring, and costs.

The panel emphasized the vulnerability of the pediatric patients, the repeated nature of the misconduct, and the registrant’s undertaking never to administer or seek authorization for sedation in future.

The appellant appealed a 90-day vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that her vehicle had been stolen by her former partner at the time it was detained.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish the vehicle was stolen, noting inconsistencies in her evidence and her initial attempt to appeal on the basis of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence the former partner intended to deprive the appellant of the vehicle, and confirmed the impoundment order.

The appellant appealed a removal order under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, which resulted in the removal of two horses, two ponies, and six chickens from her farm.

The animals were removed after an inspection revealed they were in distress, with the equines requiring urgent hoof care and the chickens living in poor conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that all the removed animals were in distress.

However, while the Board confirmed the removal of the horses and ponies as necessary to relieve their distress, it revoked the removal order for the chickens, finding that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to address their housing conditions before removal.

The appellant appealed a 90-day driver's licence suspension imposed after he failed to provide a breath sample during a traffic stop.

The appellant argued he was unable to provide the sample due to medical conditions, including a pacemaker and chronic bronchitis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence and the testimony of the arresting officer.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's medical records did not support his claim of a respiratory condition that would prevent him from providing a breath sample, noting his lungs were clear and he had no difficulty with daily activities.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's funeral pre-planner licence, alleging she mismanaged client funds by accepting e-transfers into her personal account and using one client's credit card to pay another's account.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant's actions were deficient and ill-advised, there was no evidence of deceit, misappropriation for personal benefit, or harm to clients.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation.

The appellant appealed a 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended license.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to care for her ailing parents and could not afford the $2,800 release fee.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had reasonable alternatives, such as her parents' vehicle, and failed to establish a threat to health or safety that would permit consideration of financial hardship.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to cancel its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and seize its plates.

The appellant had a history of safety problems, including a high violation rate resulting from at-fault collisions, out-of-service safety defects, and highway traffic violations.

Despite previous interventions, including a suspension and specific performance conditions, the appellant's violation rate continued to increase.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's safety record provided reason to believe it would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely and confirmed the Registrar's cancellation order.

The appellant appealed three Statements of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for transportation, boarding, and miscellaneous costs incurred after her animals were removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive but did not dispute the removal or the necessity of the costs.

The Board found the costs were reasonable, noting the respondent's obligation to properly transport and board the animals and the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim that the costs were excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order issued by an animal welfare inspector under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, requiring them to have their 16-year-old dog examined by a veterinarian.

The inspector observed the dog to be overweight, struggling to stand, and having sores and respiratory issues.

The Board accepted the expert veterinary evidence that the dog was likely suffering from osteoarthritis and was in distress.

The Board confirmed the order, finding that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was in distress and that a veterinary examination was necessary, but modified the compliance dates to allow additional time.

The appellant appealed a 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded when the appellant's friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by checking the expiry date on her licence card and relying on the fact that a car rental company had recently rented her a vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not take sufficient steps, such as checking the Ministry of Transportation's website, to verify the licence status.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded when her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant did not exercise due diligence because she failed to verify the driver's licence after he admitted he did not have the card.

The Tribunal also found that while the impoundment caused inconvenience and financial stress, it did not amount to exceptional hardship as alternative transportation was available.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed five inspection orders relating to five residential properties used to house its international employees.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the properties were being operated as boarding, lodging, or rooming houses rather than single dwelling units.

The Commission confirmed the inspector's orders, finding that the living arrangements, lack of proper lighting, cooking spaces, and emergency exits posed serious fire safety risks, and amended the compliance timelines.