Andrea Gonsalves

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision striking down provisions of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 and its Regulation.

The application judge had found that provisions invalidating consent to enter a farm obtained under false pretences violated the freedom of expression of animal rights activists seeking to conduct undercover exposés.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the activists' claim was a positive rights claim seeking access to private property on their own terms.

The Court found that the legislation did not substantially interfere with freedom of expression and that any limits were justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The College alleged that the Registrant, a registered social worker, engaged in professional misconduct by making an unsolicited phone call to the estranged spouse of a potential client during a high-conflict separation involving intimate partner violence (IPV) allegations.

The Discipline Committee found that the Registrant failed to conduct appropriate risk screening, initiated contact without consent, and made inappropriate comments minimizing the IPV allegations while urging reconciliation.

The Panel accepted expert evidence that the Registrant's conduct fell below the standards of a reasonably prudent social worker.

The Registrant was found to have engaged in professional misconduct on all four allegations, with his conduct deemed dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Registrant, a social worker, admitted to professional misconduct for entering into a romantic and sexual relationship with a former client approximately four months after providing her with social work services.

The Discipline Committee found that this conduct violated the College's Standards of Practice, which prohibit sexual relations with a former client for a period of one year following the termination of services.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication of the decision, and $1,000 in costs, taking into account the Registrant's undertaking to permanently resign from the College and never re-apply.

The Registrant, a social service worker, admitted to professional misconduct for engaging in a personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable client to whom she was providing employment support services.

The Discipline Committee found that the Registrant's conduct constituted sexual abuse, a failure to maintain professional boundaries, and practicing in a conflict of interest.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a public reprimand and $5,000 in costs, taking into account the Registrant's undertaking to permanently resign from the College and never reapply.

The College alleged that the Member participated in a fraudulent billing scheme where her clinics submitted over 130 false or partially false insurance claims to Sun Life using the credentials of a registered massage therapist without her knowledge.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member, as the clinic owner and a regulated professional, was responsible for the billing practices and had exclusive access to the bank accounts receiving the funds.

The Committee concluded that the College proved all allegations of professional misconduct, including failing to maintain standards of practice, submitting false accounts, falsifying records, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found the registrant guilty of multiple heads of professional misconduct arising from boundary violations, sexualized remarks, inappropriate self-disclosure, and exploitative communications with two clients in the course of counselling and psychotherapy services.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the College’s Handbook standards, and constituted sexual abuse through behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature not clinically appropriate to the services provided.

The panel also accepted that out-of-session and post-termination text communications, including a semi-nude photograph sent to a former client, formed part of the misconduct analysis.

A publication ban protecting the clients’ identities was granted, the two notices were combined, and the joint submission on penalty was accepted.

The registrant was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was revoked, publication was ordered, and costs of $5,000 were imposed.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that a social worker committed professional misconduct by refusing counselling services based in part on the complainant's Chinese ethnicity and assumptions about social media use and boundary risks.

Applying the prima facie discrimination framework under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the panel held that the complainant suffered adverse treatment in the provision of services and that the protected ground was a factor in the refusal.

The panel accepted expert evidence on social work boundaries and cultural competence, found that the registrant failed to make adequate inquiries before asserting a boundary conflict, and rejected the registrant's procedural fairness and abuse of process arguments.

Some allegations were dismissed, including those tied to self-determination, referral adequacy, and the intake-form language error, but multiple standards breaches and Code-related misconduct findings were made.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found the registrant guilty of professional misconduct after admissions and an agreed statement of facts established a personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable client during and after the therapeutic relationship, together with boundary breaches, concealment, dishonesty, and retaliatory conduct toward colleagues.

The panel held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the profession’s standards, including the prohibition on sexual abuse of a client.

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

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and ordered a reprimand, revocation, a five-year bar on reapplication, publication of the order with the registrant’s identifying information, and $5,000 in costs.

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 plaintiffs, a former university professor and his spouse, sued the CBC for defamation and negligence seeking $10.35 million in damages over news reports regarding the professor's termination following an investigation into sexual harassment allegations.

The CBC brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the reporting concerned a matter of public interest, the CBC had valid defences of responsible communication, justification, and fair comment, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed with full indemnity costs awarded to the CBC.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found the registrant guilty of multiple acts of professional misconduct arising from counselling a vulnerable client, engaging in boundary violations and sexual misconduct, failing to maintain competence, and keeping deficient records.

The panel relied on the registrant’s admissions and an Agreed Statement of Facts establishing abuse of power, dual relationships, failure to involve the client in treatment planning, inadequate documentation, and sexualized communications and conduct.

A publication ban was ordered under s. 28(7) of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 to protect the client’s identity.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, noting that the registrant’s permanent resignation and undertaking not to practise provided robust public protection.

The registrant was reprimanded, publication of the decision and undertaking was ordered, and costs of $6,000 were awarded.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed professional misconduct by entering into an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable client, engaging in multiple boundary crossings, operating in a conflict of interest, and failing to maintain adequate clinical records.

The misconduct included out-of-session personal contact, exchange of gifts, purchase of the client’s vehicle at less than fair market value, discussion of end-of-life planning in circumstances later followed by a substantial testamentary bequest, and deficient documentation.

The panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and the agreed statement of facts, and concluded that the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional and undermined public confidence in the profession.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, imposed a three-month suspension with two months remittable on conditions, ordered ethics-related remediation and publication, and awarded costs of $5,000.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct arising from unauthorized access to child protection records and misuse of professional status to seek information about children at a school.

The registrant admitted the allegations, and the panel held that the conduct breached the governing statute, the professional misconduct regulation, and standards concerning integrity, records, confidentiality, and consent.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, emphasizing public protection, general and specific deterrence, and remediation.

A six-month suspension, reprimand, practice-related terms and conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs were ordered.

This endorsement addresses seven motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of provisions of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, and its Regulation 701/20, which were found to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to intervene to Animal Alliance, Centre for Free Expression (CFE), Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and Labour Issues Coordinating Committee (LICC), finding they offered useful and distinct perspectives without unduly expanding the appeal's scope.

Motions by Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW), Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), and Animal Environmental Legal Advocacy (AEL Advocacy) were dismissed, primarily due to concerns about expanding the issues or duplication of arguments.

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.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found professional misconduct where a dentist implemented a significantly altered surgical treatment plan and extracted additional teeth without the patient's fully informed consent.

The panel held that proposing major changes in the treatment room on the day of surgery and proceeding immediately did not provide an adequate opportunity for meaningful consideration or consultation.

Applying the joint-submission standard, the panel accepted a three-month suspension, remedial education, mentoring, practice monitoring, and costs.

The panel treated the registrant's lengthy prior history before the complaints committee as relevant to remediation and penalty, though not as proof of the underlying prior complaints.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and an agreed statement of facts establishing sexual misconduct, boundary violations, exploitative communications, and false recordkeeping in relation to a vulnerable former client receiving mental health services.

The panel granted a publication ban and sealing order under s. 28(7) to protect the client’s identity and clinical information.

The misconduct was found to breach multiple provisions of the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, including sexual relations with a client, conflicts of interest, failure to maintain boundaries, and disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, revocation, a five-year reapplication bar, publication of the decision, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions that he engaged in a concurrent treating and sexual relationship with a patient, sent intimate electronic messages, engaged in sexual touching, and disclosed confidential information of other patients without consent.

The panel found professional misconduct proven under the Health Professions Procedural Code and Ontario Regulation 853/93, including sexual abuse of a patient, abuse of a patient, breach of patient confidentiality, and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.

Applying the public-interest standard governing joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission requiring a reprimand, immediate revocation of the certificate of registration, reimbursement obligations under the patient funding program, security of $17,370.00, and costs of $10,000.00.

The appellant appealed a decision denying him leave to amend his statement of claim in a libel action against the respondents.

The Divisional Court upheld the Associate Justice's decision, finding no error in the application of issue estoppel to prevent the addition of the appellant's professional corporation as a plaintiff, as a previous judge had already ruled the corporation had no tenable cause of action.

The court also upheld the refusal to allow scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs about a non-party, and the refusal to permit a claim for document production within the pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

In a professional discipline hearing, a registrant admitted serious boundary violations and sexual misconduct toward a vulnerable former inpatient addiction client, including continued off-hours personal contact, having the client live with him, ongoing counselling in a conflict of interest, and sexualized touching.

The panel found the agreed facts proved professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, code of ethics, and standards of practice, and held that sexual abuse did not require sexual intercourse because remarks, touching and behaviour of a sexual nature were sufficient.

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

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, and the registrant's permanent undertaking never to return to practice, and ordered a reprimand, publication, and $5,000 in costs.