Andrea Gonsalves

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel considered whether a registered social service worker committed professional misconduct by deliberately accessing confidential child-protection-related records on an agency website, posting a URL to one such document on Facebook, and posting a surreptitiously recorded video containing confidential material.

The panel held that posting the URL expanded public access to information that had the effect of identifying children or families involved in child protection proceedings, contrary to s. 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act.

It further held that this statutory breach was relevant to suitability to practise, breached professional confidentiality standards under the governing regulation and handbook, and constituted conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The allegations of professional misconduct were proven on a balance of probabilities.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found professional misconduct where the member failed to comply with a prior Discipline Committee order requiring an unconditional pass in an ethics remediation program.

The member admitted the allegation, and the College withdrew a separate governability-related allegation.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, holding that the proposed sanction was within the appropriate range and consistent with the public interest.

The order imposed a reprimand, mentorship as a term on the certificate of registration, and costs of $2,500.

The member moved to stay disciplinary proceedings arising from alleged unauthorized access to child protection records and online disclosure of confidential information until the completion of related criminal and Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework and the principle that stays of parallel civil or disciplinary proceedings are exceptional, the panel found the asserted prejudice to fair trial rights was speculative and unsupported by clear evidence.

The panel held that overlap in underlying facts did not eliminate the distinct public protection purpose, issues, and standard of proof in the discipline matter.

The balance of convenience favoured the College and the public interest in timely professional regulation, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations, prior delay, and the indefinite nature of the requested stay.

The motion was dismissed and the parties were directed to schedule the discipline hearing.

A discipline panel accepted the member's admissions to professional misconduct arising from extensive recordkeeping deficiencies and improper billing practices over several years.

The misconduct included illegible crossed-out entries, use of pencil and white-out in records, failure to retain insurance claims, delayed insurance billing using false service dates, and an inappropriate claim for a bridge where implant treatment had been provided.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed penalty consisting of a reprimand, remedial education, 24 months of practice monitoring, and costs.

The panel emphasized rehabilitation, specific and general deterrence, and public protection, while treating the guilty plea, remorse, restitution, and prior remediation as mitigating factors.

In a professional discipline motion, the member sought to quash a notice of hearing on the basis that the alleged misconduct occurred before registration.

The Panel held that the Discipline Committee has jurisdiction over pre-membership conduct where a broad and purposive reading of the governing statute, informed by the College's public protection mandate, supports that result.

The Panel rejected the submission that the registration regime exhaustively addresses pre-registration misconduct and held that the presumption against retrospectivity does not bar jurisdiction in this public protection context.

It adopted a suitability-based threshold, holding that jurisdiction extends to pre-membership conduct that calls into question the member's current suitability to practise.

The College prosecuted a discipline case arising from a social worker’s prolonged boundary violations with a client receiving counselling and psychotherapy, including frequent after-hours electronic communications, inappropriate self-disclosure, inadequate charting, and termination of services without a proper termination session.

The Panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the governing statute and regulation, including failures to maintain boundaries, document care, obtain timely consultation, and provide professionally grounded services.

The Panel held that the conduct would reasonably be regarded as dishonourable or unprofessional.

It accepted a joint submission on penalty and imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension, remedial terms including training, psychotherapy and supervision, publication, and $1,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from failure to refund a $1,600 deposit for dental treatment never performed, delay in producing patient records, breach of a prior discipline order, and failure to respond appropriately to the regulator’s inquiries.

The panel accepted the admissions and the agreed statement of facts, but made no finding on the allegation that the member was ungovernable.

The panel accepted a joint submission focused on remediation and public protection, emphasizing the absence of patient-care concerns, the member’s psychiatric treatment, mentoring, and monitoring history.

The member was reprimanded, made subject to detailed ongoing treatment, mentoring, and monitoring conditions, and ordered to pay $12,500 in costs.

In this professional discipline proceeding, the member admitted multiple allegations arising from false or misleading insurance claims, false or misleading patient-related documents, inadequate and altered records, and unethical conduct affecting numerous patients.

The panel accepted the admissions and Agreed Statement of Facts and found professional misconduct proved under the Health Professions Procedural Code and Ontario Regulation 853.

The panel also accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, holding that it served specific and general deterrence, remediation, and public protection.

The disposition included a four-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial education, practice monitoring, and costs.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct by falsifying records, submitting a false account, and failing to meet record-keeping standards.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, while the Member proposed a 3-6 month suspension.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a 6-month suspension, and the completion of remedial courses in ethics and record-keeping.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $120,000 in costs to the College, noting that the Member's conduct during the hearing unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted allegations of unnecessary dental services, excessive or unreasonable fees, recordkeeping deficiencies, and improper insurance claims affecting multiple patients over many years.

The panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the governing health-professions legislation and regulations.

On penalty, the panel raised concerns about the member’s prior discipline history, the remediation evidence, and the proposed suspension length, but ultimately applied the joint-submission standard from Anthony-Cook and accepted the proposed sanction.

The order imposed a reprimand, a two-month suspension, education in recordkeeping and billing, practice monitoring, suspension-related restrictions, and $5,000 in costs.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from diagnosing and providing unnecessary restorative treatment, failing to use appropriate radiographic technique, prescribing antibiotics without adequate diagnostic foundation, failing to identify substandard restorations performed under supervision, and deficient recordkeeping.

The panel found the admissions voluntary, informed and unequivocal, and was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the misconduct was established.

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

A one-month suspension, remedial coursework, practice monitoring, reprimand, and $3,000 in costs were ordered.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct involving substandard endodontic and restorative treatment, deficient recordkeeping, false and excessive insurance claims, failures of informed consent, and inadequate responses to the regulator’s inquiries across multiple patient files.

The panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the misconduct established as alleged in two Notices of Hearing.

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

A six-month suspension, practice restrictions, remedial education, practice monitoring, reprimand, and costs were ordered.

The applicant, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, sought judicial review of a disciplinary decision made by the party that fined him $50,000 for a rules violation.

The party brought a motion to quash the application for want of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that political parties are private, voluntary associations.

Applying the factors from Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority, the court concluded that the party's disciplinary decisions do not involve the exercise of state power and are therefore not subject to public law remedies like certiorari.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the panel accepted the member’s guilty plea and agreed statement of facts regarding cosmetic dental treatment in which crowns and a bridge were provided after discussions and documentation referring to veneers.

The panel found professional misconduct for over-preparing teeth, failing to obtain informed consent, charging excessive fees above recommended rates without explanation or consent, and providing inaccurate information to the regulator during the investigation.

The panel held that the patient had not consented to the actual treatment provided and that the member’s conduct caused significant clinical harm and raised serious integrity concerns.

A joint submission on penalty was accepted, resulting in an 18-month suspension, extensive remedial and practice restriction terms, and costs.

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a candidate in its leadership contest.

The candidate sought review of the CPC's decision to fine him $50,000 for allegedly leaking a membership list.

The CPC argued the court lacked jurisdiction because judicial review is limited to state action, that political parties lack standing as respondents, and that the application was premature.

The court dismissed the standing and prematurity arguments, finding that unincorporated associations can be subject to judicial review and that the internal appeal process was potentially biased.

However, noting conflicting jurisprudence on whether judicial review requires state conduct, the court adjourned the jurisdictional issue to be determined by a full panel of the Divisional Court.

A discipline panel found a dentist guilty of professional misconduct after he admitted failing to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program ordered by the complaints committee and failing to respond appropriately to repeated regulatory communications.

The panel held that the admitted facts established both a failure to reply within a reasonable time to a written enquiry and conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty and costs, the panel imposed a reprimand, 24 months of practice monitoring, counselling at the member's expense, and costs.

The panel emphasized public protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the importance of compliance with regulator-ordered remediation.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for allegedly misappropriating money and narcotics from two vulnerable home care clients.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The panel dismissed the allegations regarding the first client due to inconsistencies in the affidavit evidence.

However, the panel found the Member committed professional misconduct by misappropriating cash from the second client, noting the Member had already pleaded guilty to criminal theft charges for this incident.

The panel ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for accessing a client's personal information for a non-health-related purpose, sending personal text messages to the client, misappropriating a blank prescription pad from the hospital, and forging a physician's signature to prescribe himself medication.

The member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

Pursuant to a joint submission, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, noting that the member had already permanently resigned from the College and agreed never to reapply.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct for failing to report the abuse of a client.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought a two-month suspension, while the Member argued for a six-week suspension.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration, including mandatory meetings with a Nursing Expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for issuing written referral orders for in-vitro fertilization under a physician's name without approval, and for falsifying payroll records to transfer his worked hours to his sister to help her qualify for Employment Insurance.

The member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct, including misappropriating property and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.