Alexandra Matushenko

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.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the tribunal found misconduct arising from extensive recordkeeping failures and the issuance of false massage therapy receipts for treatments not provided as stated.

The evidence included hundreds of deficient client records, missing treatment notes, and text-message communications showing the creation of back-dated receipts for family members for insurance reimbursement.

Applying the joint-submission standard from Anthony-Cook, the tribunal accepted a proposed penalty consisting of a reprimand, a five-month suspension, remedial education, and compliance audits.

The tribunal also ordered costs payable in instalments.

In this discipline matter, the tribunal considered whether a registrant's repeated failures to respond to scheduling communications and non-attendance at a directed case management conference justified a costs sanction.

Applying its procedural rules and statutory authority to proceed in absence and award costs for unreasonable conduct, the tribunal found the conduct unreasonable and wasteful of counsel, adjudicator, interpreter, and tribunal staff resources.

The tribunal ordered the registrant to pay $500 in costs immediately, with postjudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant, a dentist facing disciplinary proceedings before the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) regarding allegations of sexual abuse, brought an application for judicial review seeking mandamus to compel the College to obtain an unredacted copy of a police file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court found that the administrative proceeding was not complete, as the ICRC had not yet made its decision and the applicant still had the opportunity to make submissions to the ICRC regarding the need for the unredacted documents.

The court concluded there were no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering in the ongoing administrative process.

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.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the Tribunal found that the registrant used false identities to make repeated false accusations against a College employee, including allegations of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ bias and improper disclosure of confidential information.

The Tribunal admitted forensic IP-address expert evidence under the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks and relied on that evidence, together with the documentary record and the registrant’s non-participation, to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the accusations were fabricated by or at the direction of the registrant.

The conduct was found to contravene College standards, constitute disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, and amount to conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.

Given the ongoing misconduct, failure to comply with prior regulatory requirements, and failure to participate in the discipline process, the Tribunal found the registrant ungovernable, revoked his certificate of registration, and ordered costs.

The applicants, minority shareholders of Tryp Therapeutics Inc., applied to the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) and the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) for relief regarding a proposed financing transaction, alleging it was an improper related party transaction and defensive tactic.

They requested a joint hearing before both commissions.

The OSC determined it had the authority to conduct a joint hearing under subsection 3.5(2) of the Securities Act and exercised its discretion to do so, noting that differences in regulatory requirements—specifically Ontario's adoption of MI 61-101, which British Columbia has not adopted—warranted a joint proceeding.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Threegold Resources Inc. distributed convertible debentures without a prospectus, engaged in unregistered trading, and breached a cease trade order.

The Commission found that Threegold distributed $310,000 in debentures to 19 investors without a prospectus or applicable exemption, and did so while a cease trade order was in effect.

However, the Commission dismissed the allegation of unregistered trading, finding that the capital raising was ancillary to Threegold's mineral exploration business and did not cross the line into the business of trading.

The Commission imposed permanent trading and acquisition bans against Threegold.

Joseph Debus, an investment advisor, applied for a review of an IIROC panel's decisions finding he engaged in unauthorized and discretionary trading, recommended unsuitable investments, and failed to disclose outside business activities.

He sought to introduce new evidence and argued he received ineffective assistance from his paralegal at the IIROC hearing.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed his requests for a third-party summons and an adjournment.

On the merits, the Commission found no miscarriage of justice regarding his representation or IIROC Staff's investigation.

The Commission concluded the IIROC panel made no material errors in law and that the sanctions imposed, including a nine-month suspension and fines, were appropriate.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the recusal of the adjudicator on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias against him and his counsel.

The applicant alleged bias based on the manner in which the proceeding was conducted, the adjudicator's attitude towards his counsel's health issues, and alleged partiality towards the respondents.

The adjudicator applied the test for reasonable apprehension of bias and found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold.

The motion for recusal was dismissed.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of IIROC merits and sanctions decisions which found he inappropriately altered signed client documents and suspended his registration for 12 months.

The applicant argued the IIROC Panel erred by admitting unalleged misconduct, reversing the onus of proof, making improper inferences from circumstantial evidence, and imposing excessive sanctions.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding the IIROC Panel's decisions were reasonable, applied the correct onus of proof, and appropriately relied on both direct and circumstantial evidence.

The applicant sought a review of an IIROC hearing panel decision that ordered his merits hearing to proceed electronically by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction to change the hearing mode over his objection and that the IIROC Rules entitled him to an in-person oral hearing.

The Ontario Securities Commission upheld the IIROC decision, finding that the IIROC Rules permit a hearing panel to choose the hearing mode and that a videoconference hearing satisfies a respondent's entitlement to attend and be heard 'in person'.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents breached a cease trade order, engaged in unregistered trading, and distributed securities without a prospectus.

The individual respondents admitted to the contraventions and entered into a settlement agreement with Staff.

The Commission approved the settlement, finding the agreed sanctions—including a $30,000 administrative penalty, $10,000 in costs, and a four-year market ban for each individual respondent—to be reasonable and in the public interest.

The applicant applied for a hearing and review of an IIROC decision and sought to introduce new documentary and oral evidence not included in the original record.

IIROC Staff brought a motion objecting to the admission of the new evidence.

The Commission held that the proposed evidence did not meet the 'new and compelling' standard required by the Canada Malting test, as the documents and witnesses were known or ought to have been known to the applicant at the time of the original hearing.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was precluded from adducing the new evidence.

The applicant, a registered representative, sought a stay of two IIROC decisions that suspended his registration for 12 months for inappropriately altering client documents.

The Commission applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test and granted the stay pending the disposition of his application for hearing and review.

The Commission found that the review application raised serious issues, the applicant would suffer irreparable financial and reputational harm without a stay, and the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the low risk of client harm and the imposition of close supervision conditions.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) regarding allegations of supervisory inadequacies in RBC's foreign exchange (FX) trading business from 2011 to 2013.

Staff alleged that RBC failed to promote a culture of compliance, allowing FX traders to inappropriately share confidential customer information with competitors in electronic chat rooms.

RBC acknowledged the conduct was contrary to the public interest, engaged in significant remediation efforts, and agreed to make a voluntary payment of $13,552,000 and pay $800,000 in costs.

The Commission found the settlement to be in the public interest.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and The Toronto-Dominion Bank regarding allegations of supervisory inadequacies in TD's foreign exchange trading business from 2011 to 2013.

Staff alleged that TD failed to promote a culture of compliance, allowing traders to inappropriately share confidential customer information with competitors.

TD acknowledged the conduct and agreed to a voluntary payment of $9,300,900 and $800,000 in costs.

The Commission found the settlement to be in the public interest, noting TD's significant remediation efforts and exemplary cooperation.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for an inter-jurisdictional order under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act against USI-Tech Limited, relying on a decision by Québec's Tribunal administratif des marchés financiers (TMF).

The TMF had found that USI-Tech engaged in unregistered dealing and illegal distribution of securities related to cryptocurrency products.

The Commission found that the statutory test was met and that it was in the public interest to issue a reciprocal order.

The Commission permanently prohibited USI-Tech from trading in or acquiring securities, and from trading in derivatives, to protect Ontario investors and capital markets.

The applicants, dissident shareholders engaged in a proxy contest, sought a hearing and review of a Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) decision that conditionally approved the issuance of shares by Eco Oro Minerals Corp. to certain shareholders without requiring a shareholder vote.

The TSX permitted an accelerated closing of the share issuance just days before the record date for a requisitioned shareholder meeting.

The Ontario Securities Commission conducted a de novo review, finding that the TSX overlooked material evidence regarding the proxy contest and erred in its interpretation of 'materially affect control.' The Commission set aside the TSX decision, concluding that the share issuance materially affected control and required shareholder approval.

To remedy the improper issuance, the Commission ordered Eco Oro to hold a shareholder vote to either ratify or reverse the share issuance, cease-traded the new shares pending the vote, and prohibited the new shares from being voted at the upcoming meeting.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent following his criminal convictions for fraud and forgery.

Staff requested permanent bans on trading, acquiring securities, and acting as a director, officer, or promoter.

The respondent agreed that sanctions were warranted but sought carve-outs to allow him to continue working as a creative producer and to facilitate tax and estate planning.

The Commission rejected the proposed carve-outs for the director, officer, and promoter bans, finding they were not protective of the public and could create loopholes.

However, the Commission accepted the respondent's proposed carve-outs for the acquisition and trading bans, allowing him to trade in personal tax-advantaged accounts, as his misconduct was not related to trading through brokerage accounts.