Anastasia-Maria Hountalas

The appellant, a registered massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario finding him guilty of sexual abuse and revoking his license.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of fact and dismissed allegations of bias.

However, the Court found the Panel erred by applying 2017 mandatory revocation amendments retrospectively to 2014 conduct.

Finding permanent revocation disproportionate for a first-time offender under the prior discretionary regime, the Court substituted the revocation with a suspension ending on the date of judgment.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeals Tribunal decision setting aside a proposal to revoke the respondent's crematorium operator licence.

The respondent used a low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis process, which the Registrar argued posed a public health risk due to potential failure to destroy prions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded the Registrar failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the process created a risk to public health and safety.

The Court also found the Tribunal did not err in its application of the precautionary principle or in declining to impose further licence conditions.

The Member, an acupuncturist, admitted to professional misconduct for submitting false claims to an insurance company for services not provided and falsifying patient records.

An undercover investigator attended the clinic, received a massage from another person, and the clinic subsequently billed the insurer for eight acupuncture treatments purportedly provided by the Member.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Member's certificate of registration was suspended for six months, and he was ordered to complete an ethics course, a record-keeping workshop, write a reflective essay, undergo practice assessments, and pay $1,000 in costs.

The College brought a motion to stay disciplinary proceedings against a former member alleged to have committed insurance fraud and other acts of professional misconduct.

The member's certificate of registration had expired, and evidence indicated he had left Canada indefinitely.

The Discipline Committee granted the stay, finding it in the public interest as the former member was no longer practicing in Ontario and would face disciplinary proceedings if he ever reapplied for registration.

The College brought a motion to stay discipline proceedings against the Member based on an Undertaking and Surrender Agreement.

The Member, who was not present, had agreed to surrender her Certificate of Registration, resign from the College, and never reapply or practice traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture in any jurisdiction.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the Agreement adequately protected the public interest and ensured transparency.

The College alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct after he was found guilty in criminal court of two counts of sexual assault against a patient.

The Member did not attend the discipline hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by being found guilty of an offence relevant to his suitability to practise and by sexually abusing a patient.

The Committee ordered that the Member be reprimanded, his certificate of registration be revoked, he reimburse the College for patient therapy funding up to $16,060, and he pay costs of $28,299.90.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians, which revoked his license to practice veterinary medicine and ordered him to pay costs of $160,000 for unprofessional conduct.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including missing transcripts, failure to disclose documents held by a third party, and alleged bias of an expert witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's decision reasonable and noting that the appellant failed to bring a proper motion for third-party disclosure and consented to the expert's qualification.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.