Alyssa Leah Armstrong

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the conduct of a five-week hearing regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The order establishes deadlines for documentary discovery, witness statements, expert reports, and other pre-hearing steps leading up to the hearing scheduled to commence on April 6, 2027.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, establishing the timetable for documentary discovery, mediation, examinations for discovery, and the exchange of expert reports leading up to an eight-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 1, 2027.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act following a partial fee simple taking and temporary limited interest by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling a 15-day video hearing to commence on November 23, 2026, and set out the procedural requirements leading up to the hearing.

Discipline proceeding arising from prolonged boundary violations by a social worker with a vulnerable client in a housing support setting.

The registrant admitted exchanging highly personal text messages, attending the client’s apartment to socialize, giving money and cannabis, accepting favours, failing to address romantic overtures appropriately, practising in a conflict of interest, and failing to document the full extent of the interactions.

The Panel found professional misconduct proved on a balance of probabilities and granted a publication ban protecting the client’s identity.

The Panel accepted an amended joint submission on penalty, imposed a written reprimand, a suspended five-month suspension triggered on any future re-registration, remediation and supervision conditions, publication of the order, and $5,000 in costs.

Discipline proceeding arising from a registrant’s admitted sexual relationship with a former or active psychotherapy/counselling client, together with related boundary violations and nondisclosure of a prior complaint to another professional body.

The Panel held that the timing dispute over whether the client was still active when the sexual relationship commenced was immaterial because the professional standards prohibited sexual relations at any time following termination where psychotherapy or counselling had been provided.

The admitted misconduct was found to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, with significant aggravating factors including the client’s vulnerabilities, enduring psychological harm, and failure to disclose the earlier complaint on registration and renewals.

The Panel accepted a joint submission on penalty as consistent with the public interest and ordered a written reprimand, publication, and costs, in the context of the registrant’s irrevocable surrender and undertaking never to practise again.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct after the registrant admitted sexually exploitative boundary violations and record-keeping failures arising from a counselling relationship with a vulnerable student client.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached the profession’s standards, constituted sexual abuse within the meaning of the governing statute, and was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest approach to a joint penalty submission, the panel accepted a proposed order imposing reprimand, revocation, a five-year prohibition on reapplying for registration, publication of the order, and costs.

A publication ban protected the client’s identity.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the arbitration of a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act between the claimants and the Region of Waterloo.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of documents, examinations for discovery, mediation, expert meetings, and the filing of witness statements leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to begin on November 20, 2023.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that the member committed repeated boundary violations and sexual misconduct against three vulnerable clients, including prolonged unwanted touching, sexualized comments, coercive conduct, and in one instance forced sexual contact.

The panel also found that the member failed to maintain proper clinical and financial records and issued false invoices in a child’s name to obtain insurance reimbursement for services actually provided to adult clients.

Relying in part on expert evidence on social work ethics, boundaries, documentation, and trauma-informed practice, the panel held that the conduct breached multiple provisions of the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the Standards of Practice Handbook.

All allegations in both Notices of Hearing were proven on a balance of probabilities.

The appellant held an aggregate licence on property owned by the respondent.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry decided to transfer the licence to the property owner.

The appellant challenged this at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing it should receive financial compensation.

The Tribunal ruled on a preliminary motion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider financial compensation.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that without a full factual record and substantive decision from the Tribunal, it could not properly review the jurisdictional and policy findings.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection resulting from construction and road closures associated with the respondent's light rail transit project.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that pleadings were exchanged but undertakings and refusals remained incomplete.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing on the merits and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and questions taken under advisement during examinations for discovery in an expropriation claim.

The claim relates to business losses allegedly caused by the Region's light rail transit project construction.

The Tribunal ordered the Claimant to provide evidence supporting the date of construction completion and the basis for its appraisal value, but found requests for a planner's file premature.

The Tribunal ordered the Region to produce project work schedules and explain the reasoning for a related street widening, but dismissed requests for indemnity claims against the contractor and voluminous project updates on proportionality grounds.

Following prior findings of professional misconduct arising from boundary violations, inappropriate sexualized comments and disclosures, and deficient record-keeping in counselling sessions with a vulnerable client, the Discipline Committee determined penalty and costs.

The panel held that public protection, maintenance of confidence in the profession, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and remediation required a written reprimand, a five-month suspension, publication, and tailored remedial terms including coursework, reflective essays, employer notification, and practice supervision if the member returned to practice.

The panel treated the absence of mitigating factors flowing from non-participation as significant, while emphasizing the seriousness of the misconduct and the vulnerability of the client.

It also awarded the College $20,000 in costs, payable within 18 months, as fair and reasonable relative to the actual costs incurred.

The appellant, a registered social service worker, appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of professional misconduct for surreptitiously recording a meeting and posting a hyperlink to confidential child protection records online.

She argued the Committee erred because she had been acquitted of criminal and provincial offences arising from the same conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee was not bound by the criminal acquittal due to different evidentiary standards and evidence.

The court upheld the Committee's findings that the appellant published identifying information contrary to the Child and Family Services Act and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The penalty, including a six-month suspension, was affirmed.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct involving forged client signatures, fabricated clinical records, backdated documentation, inaccurate service information, and emailing confidential client records to a personal email account.

The panel accepted the admissions and found professional misconduct proven under the governing statute and regulation, while holding that the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional but not disgraceful given the acknowledged health context.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty aimed at public protection and remediation.

The order included a reprimand, a suspended eight-month suspension effective only upon any future reissuance of registration, conditions requiring ethics and clinical documentation courses, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from counselling a client with an acquired brain injury while lacking relevant competence, using abusive and demeaning communications, breaching confidentiality, and engaging in boundary violations and conflicts of interest through overlapping family representation and personal self-disclosure.

The Panel found the admitted facts established multiple breaches of the governing regulation, the Code of Ethics, and the Standards of Practice Handbook, and further found the conduct disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the Panel accepted the jointly proposed order.

The member was reprimanded, suspended for four months with one month remittable on compliance, made subject to remedial terms and education requirements, and ordered to pay $5,000 in costs.

Professional discipline decision concerning a social worker who admitted professional misconduct arising from couples counselling in which she failed to adequately screen for, recognize, and respond to signs of intimate partner abuse.

The panel found that the member failed to make necessary inquiries, assess power dynamics, use appropriate screening tools, ensure a safety plan, and remain current in practice standards and supervision obligations.

The panel also found the conduct dishonourable and unprofessional, particularly given a prior caution on similar issues.

A joint penalty submission was accepted imposing a reprimand, a one-month suspension suspended for two years subject to compliance, remedial education and supervision terms, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

The appellant sought a declaration that his date of birth is January 1, 1951, rather than November 5, 1955, as recorded in his Iraqi identity documents when he applied for permanent residence in Canada in 1991.

The appellant wished to use the corrected date to apply for Canada Pension Plan benefits.

The Superior Court dismissed the application on three grounds: Ontario was not a proper party, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the appellant failed to prove his true date of birth.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Ontario had no demonstrated interest in the proceeding and was not a proper party.

However, the court indicated that on a proper record with the correct parties, particularly the Attorney General of Canada, the court may have jurisdiction to grant such declaratory relief.