Andrea Gonsalves

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed extensive professional misconduct arising from boundary violations with a vulnerable client, including a later sexual relationship with a former counselling client, confidentiality breaches, inadequate records, and conflicts of interest.

The panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and the agreed statement of facts, and held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the governing statute, regulation, and professional standards, including conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

A publication ban protecting the client’s identity was granted in the public interest.

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

The applicants, animal rights activists, challenged the constitutionality of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act and its Regulation.

They argued that provisions voiding consent to enter agricultural premises if obtained under false pretences, and provisions prohibiting interaction with farm animals, violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

The court found that the Act's prohibition on interacting with animals did not violate the Charter, as there is no constitutional right to physically interact with another's private property.

However, the court held that Section 9 of the Regulation, which penalized any false statement made to gain access to agricultural premises, unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression.

The court struck down Section 9 and certain limitations within the whistleblower and journalist exemptions, while upholding the rest of the Act.

The Member was found guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing two patients during acupuncture treatment sessions.

The Member had previously pled guilty to criminal charges of sexual assault for the same conduct and received a 12-month conditional sentence.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Member's admissions and the College's evidence, finding the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, reimbursement of up to $34,740 for patient therapy and counselling, and $34,605.56 in costs.

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.

The discipline panel found that the registrant committed professional misconduct by engaging in repeated boundary violations with a vulnerable client, including personal self-disclosure, text messaging, acceptance of gifts, and cultivation of a dual relationship.

The panel also found that the registrant prepared an unauthorized report outside her scope of practice, charged and retained a cash fee using a generic receipt, failed to document the transaction in the client file, and later attempted to conceal the misconduct.

Proceeding in the registrant’s absence, the panel accepted viva voce and affidavit evidence, including hearsay admitted under the tribunal’s evidentiary powers.

The panel imposed a reprimand, a 10-month suspension with partial remission tied to completion of ethics training, supervision and practice restrictions on return to practice, publication of the decision, and costs of $42,778.63.

A discipline panel accepted a registrant’s admissions to professional misconduct arising from widespread false dental insurance billing, fabricated records, altered radiographs, and misleading supporting documents involving multiple patients over 2018 and 2019.

Applying the public-interest test for joint penalty submissions, the panel held the proposed disposition was within the reasonable range for comparable discipline cases and advanced public protection, deterrence, and remediation.

The panel imposed a four-month suspension, reprimand, extensive practice and compliance conditions, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identities of patients named in the exhibits.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed extensive professional misconduct against multiple vulnerable counselling clients, including sexual abuse, sexualized communications, dual relationships, boundary violations, self-disclosure, and attempts to prevent reporting.

The panel proceeded in the registrant’s absence after finding proper service, granted a publication ban protecting certain clients’ identities, and combined two notices of hearing into one proceeding.

Relying on agreed statements of fact and the balance of probabilities standard, the panel found breaches of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the College’s standards of practice.

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

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.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted multiple allegations of professional misconduct arising from implant treatment provided to a patient over a two-year period.

The admitted misconduct included inadequate case selection, failure to obtain adequate diagnostic records, treatment beyond competence, improper implant placement into sinus and nasal structures, unjustified opioid prescribing without proper documentation, failure to refer to a specialist, deficient professional boundaries, and misleading and unprofessional communications.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission imposing an eight-month suspension, extensive mentoring and monitoring terms, remedial education, a reprimand, and costs.

The panel emphasized patient harm, repetition of prior regulatory concerns, and the need for both specific and general deterrence.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted admissions to sexual abuse of a patient, excessive opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing, self-prescribing and office-use prescribing of benzodiazepines, improper non-dental prescribing, misuse of nitrous oxide and cocaine, and prescription record-keeping failures.

The panel combined two notices of hearing, found professional misconduct on all allegations except withdrawn particulars, and held that the admitted sexual relationship with a patient constituted sexual abuse within the Code.

Applying the public-interest test for joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction.

Because the misconduct included sexual abuse of a patient who was not the registrant’s spouse, revocation was mandatory under the Code.

The panel also ordered a reprimand and $10,000 in costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,334.37 to the responding party.

The applicant brought an unsuccessful motion to transfer a defamation action commenced by the respondent in the Small Claims Court to the Superior Court of Justice, and to schedule a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondent on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the applicant's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, but that the applicant should bear the costs of pursuing an unnecessary and unsuccessful motion.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties (defendants) sought full indemnity costs totalling over $1.1 million.

The court awarded full indemnity costs as requested, subject to a reduction for the costs of non-active counsel, clerks, or students.

The court also apportioned liability, finding one plaintiff jointly and severally liable only for costs related to the OMA dispute, while the other plaintiff was solely liable for costs related to the COVID-19 dispute.

The applicant, a defendant in a Small Claims Court defamation action regarding a Google review, brought a motion to transfer the action to the Superior Court of Justice.

The transfer was sought solely to enable the applicant to bring an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which the Court of Appeal previously ruled is unavailable in Small Claims Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the unavailability of a section 137.1 motion does not mean the action cannot be justly and fairly resolved in Small Claims Court, and that the traditional factors for transfer were not met.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted multiple allegations involving deficient records, unsupported restorative claims, and billing orthodontic-related treatment as restorative treatment for insured patients.

The panel found professional misconduct proven on the admitted facts, including failures in record-keeping, false or misleading billing, and failure to take and maintain required clinical photographs.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction consisting of a reprimand, a four-month suspension, remediation and mentoring terms, ongoing monitoring, and costs.

The reasons emphasized public protection, deterrence, remediation, and the aggravating feature that the misconduct occurred in the context of discounted Invisalign services and inflated insurer billings.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the member admitted allegations arising from inaccurate, conflicting, and falsified client records created while providing social work services to motor vehicle accident claimants.

The Panel found professional misconduct established on the agreed facts, including failures to maintain systematic and accurate records, creation of false or misleading documents, and conduct reasonably regarded as dishonourable and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint penalty submissions, the Panel accepted a revised joint submission providing for a reprimand, a three-month suspension with a partially remittable component, supervision, an ethics course, publication, and costs.

The Panel treated the member’s prior caution for similar record-keeping concerns as an aggravating factor and her admissions and cooperation as mitigating.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing her defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding a published photo was not defamatory and in upholding the respondents' defence of responsible communication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge applied the proper legal framework from Pointes Protection and Grant v. Torstar, and her conclusions were entitled to deference.

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 applicant broadcaster brought an application for copyright infringement against a political party for using short clips of its news broadcasts and leadership debates in political attack ads and social media posts.

The Court found that the taking constituted a substantial part of the works, but that the use was protected under the fair dealing exception for the purpose of criticism.

The application for declaratory relief was dismissed with costs.