Amy Lynn Block

The plaintiff brought an action against the regulatory college seeking declarations and orders regarding the college's alleged failure to investigate the integrity of a third-party examining board's written examinations.

The defendant requested the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it was a collateral attack attempting to re-litigate the plaintiff's previously unsuccessful challenges to his examination results.

The action was dismissed.

The Law Society of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Law Society Tribunal finding that the applicant, who had a history of child sexual abuse, was of good character and could be licensed to practice law with a condition that he not be alone with minors.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the overarching public interest and public trust in the legal profession.

The Court also found the licensing condition internally inconsistent with a finding of good character.

The matter was remitted to the Hearing Division for a fresh assessment.

Additionally, the Court granted the applicant's motion for an anonymization and non-publication order to protect the identity of his daughter, a victim of his past abuse.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the registrant for prescribing orthotics without adequate assessment, failing to maintain proper records, and engaging in rude and discourteous behaviour towards a patient and an insurance representative.

The registrant admitted the allegations and undertook to permanently resign her certificate of registration.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $29,000 in costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for validating insurance claims for orthotics dispensed by clinic staff and non-registrants, falsifying patient records, and providing false information to an insurance company.

Prior to the hearing, the registrant undertook to permanently resign from the College and never reapply.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $8,000 in costs, finding that the permanent resignation adequately protected the public and the penalty did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report and the subsequent municipal council decision suspending her salary for 90 days.

The Integrity Commissioner found the applicant breached sections 10 and 15 of the Code of Conduct through social media posts following a defeated motion regarding flag-raising.

The Divisional Court held that while the finding of a breach of section 15 (discreditable conduct) was reasonable, the interpretation of section 10 (improper use of influence) to prohibit continued advocacy after a council decision or advocacy on matters outside council's purview was unreasonable.

The report and council decision were quashed and remitted for reconsideration of the penalty.

Professional discipline decision concerning a dentist who admitted breaching a prior Discipline Committee order that permanently restricted him from performing implant dentistry.

The panel found professional misconduct proved on an agreed statement of facts, including pre-suspension and post-suspension breaches and the registrant's failure to seek clarification of the restriction despite prior discipline history.

Applying the stringent public-interest test for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed penalty consisting of a reprimand, a consecutive 10-month suspension, suspension conditions, an ethics course, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication restriction was ordered protecting the identity of patients.

The College discipline panel found a registrant social worker guilty of professional misconduct for making sexualized remarks to two vulnerable teenage clients during school counselling sessions.

Applying the balance of probabilities to an agreed statement of facts and admissions, the panel held the conduct breached professional standards, constituted sexual abuse within the governing statute, and amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

A publication ban was granted to protect the clients’ identities and identifying school information.

The panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, publication of the finding and order, and $5,000 in costs, noting the registrant had permanently surrendered his certificate and undertaken never to practise again.

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.

The applicant career college sought judicial review of a decision by Accreditation Canada to revoke the accreditation of its Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program, and the Superintendent's subsequent decision to revoke the program's approval.

Accreditation Canada brought a motion to stay the judicial review proceedings under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in the accreditation contract.

The Divisional Court found that while the accreditation decision was an exercise of statutory authority with sufficient public character to be subject to judicial review, the technical requirements for a mandatory stay in favour of arbitration were met.

The court held that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and that the subject matter was capable of being arbitrated.

The motion to stay the judicial review was granted.

The applicant career college brought a motion for a stay of the Superintendent's decision to revoke approval of its diagnostic medical sonography program pending a judicial review application.

The revocation followed the loss of the program's accreditation status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable harm, such as financial inability to pay required student refunds.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay to allow students to receive refunds and pursue education elsewhere, rather than remaining trapped in an unaccredited program.

The Law Society of Ontario sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal, which had set aside a Hearing Division decision denying the respondent's application for licensing.

The respondent, a former lawyer whose licence was revoked following misappropriation and criminal fraud convictions, applied for reinstatement but the Hearing Division found he failed to prove good character.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Appeal Division's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply the appellate standard of review, impermissibly reweighed evidence, and mischaracterized the Hearing Division's findings.

The Hearing Division's decision denying the licence was restored.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found professional misconduct where a social service worker developed boundary-crossing interactions with a vulnerable addiction client during counselling and entered into a personal and sexual relationship less than eight months after the counselling relationship ended.

The panel held that the admitted facts established conflicts of interest, exploitation, sexual misconduct, and conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional under the governing statute, regulation, and practice standards.

A publication ban protecting the client’s identity was granted under s. 28(7).

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and ordered reprimand, revocation, a five-year prohibition on reapplying for registration, publication of the finding and order, and $5,000 in costs.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for breaching an undertaking to permanently resign and cease practicing chiropody.

Despite the undertaking, the Member continued to practice, use the restricted title of 'Dr.', and hold himself out as a podiatrist.

The Member admitted to the allegations in an uncontested hearing.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, and costs of $23,000.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, brought a motion to exclude specified material from the record of proceedings filed by the respondents in her underlying application for judicial review.

The judicial review application challenged the Integrity Commissioner's finding that the applicant breached the municipality's code of conduct and the municipal council's subsequent decision to suspend her pay for 90 days.

The applicant argued the Integrity Commissioner did not exercise a statutory power of decision and that the material was irrelevant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Integrity Commissioner did exercise a statutory power of decision and that the targeted material was relevant to the procedural fairness and bias issues raised by the applicant herself.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of the respondent school board's decision to sanction her for breaching its Code of Conduct.

The applicant had made comments about other trustees that were investigated and found to be harassing and discriminatory.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the board's decision, finding a breach of procedural fairness.

The board failed to follow its own mandatory procedures for Code of Conduct complaints, including time limits and informal resolution steps, and failed to make the statutorily required finding that a breach had occurred before imposing sanctions.

The appellant, a licensed chiropodist, appealed from misconduct findings and a $70,000 costs award made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropodists of Ontario.

The Committee found that the appellant failed to comply with a prior suspension order by continuing to benefit financially from his practice, failing to update his website to reflect his suspended status, and engaging in regulated activities such as sterilizing medical instruments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's liability findings and no error in principle in the costs award.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding he engaged in professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The Tribunal found the appellant defrauded OHIP by billing for thousands of tests he did not provide, received kickbacks for referring patients to a cardiac clinic, and conducted medically unnecessary tests.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in admitting evidence obtained during a search of his clinic, relying on the College's expert, and failing to assist him as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings or factual findings, and upheld the license revocation as a fit penalty for intentional billing fraud.

Dr. Kustka, a family physician, and several of her patients brought applications for judicial review challenging the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to investigate her COVID-19 practices, including prescribing ivermectin and providing mask exemptions.

The patients challenged the College's ability to access their medical records, arguing it violated their Charter rights.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' applications for lack of public and private interest standing.

The Court dismissed the physician's applications as premature, noting that challenges to the appointment of investigators should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also found the College's interim restrictions and investigation decisions were reasonable.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to maintain the standard of practice by treating cancer patients with unproven complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, failing to obtain informed consent, and improperly billing OHIP for palliative care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, no procedural unfairness, and that the Tribunal's factual findings were well-supported by the evidence.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion for a sealing order and the continuation of a non-publication order regarding exhibits containing personal health information of patients in an appeal from the discipline tribunal.

The self-represented appellant opposed the motion, arguing that redactions would suffice.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court found that court openness posed a serious risk to the important public interest of protecting patient confidentiality.

The court granted the motion, concluding that the proposed order was necessary and its benefits outweighed the negative effects on the open court principle.