Andrea Gonsalves

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct, including using the unauthorized designation of Registered Massage Therapist, issuing a receipt in her son's name, failing to maintain proper patient records, and improperly storing used acupuncture needles.

The member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an 8-month suspension (reducible to 4 months upon completing conditions), a reprimand, practice conditions, and costs of $2,500.

The member, a registered practical nurse, pled guilty to professional misconduct after being convicted of criminally assaulting a former client while on vacation.

The Discipline Committee found that the member's actions constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms and conditions on the member's certificate of registration, including meetings with a nursing expert.

The appellant telecommunications carriers appealed a final order of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that increased the annual pole attachment charge payable to Hydro One Networks Inc. The appellants argued that the OEB breached procedural fairness by expanding the scope of their review and vary motion to include new evidence and issues, and erred in law by refusing to order production of a pole sharing agreement between Hydro One and Bell Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB conducted the hearing fairly by granting the appellants' request for a hearing de novo and allowing all parties to present updated evidence.

The Court also held that the OEB's refusal to order production of the actual agreement, while requiring disclosure of its relevant financial impacts, was within its procedural jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by accessing the electronic health records of a high-profile client without authorization or professional purpose.

The Member accessed the records out of curiosity regarding the client's age and family history.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, finding the conduct to be dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Member was reprimanded, suspended for one month, and subjected to terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for accepting payment from her employer for hours she did not work in order to qualify for Employment Insurance benefits.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member misappropriated property and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and the imposition of terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration, including remediation and employer notification.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to disclose to his employer that he had previously paid a client for sexual services, and for subsequently providing nursing care to that client while she was incarcerated.

The Member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging that his actions constituted a conflict of interest and a breach of professional boundaries.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, characterizing his conduct as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and the imposition of terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for harassing three co-workers, including inappropriate comments and physical touching without consent.

Following an agreed statement of facts, the Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct by engaging in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the Member for failing to complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (SCERP) ordered by the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member's failure to comply with the SCERP order constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

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

The Plaintiffs brought a refusals motion seeking answers to questions refused during the examinations for discovery of the Attorney General of Canada's representatives.

The questions pertained to information gathered during inquiries into the torture of Canadian citizens by foreign governments, the adoption of non-party inquiry testimony, production of in camera inquiry transcripts, and underlying evidence for allegations made against the Plaintiffs.

The court analyzed each refusal discretely, rejecting a global proportionality argument, and ordered some questions to be answered while upholding refusals for others, particularly those asking the AGC to adopt non-party testimony.

The Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario held a penalty hearing for a member previously found guilty of professional misconduct.

The misconduct included criminal convictions for possession of stolen license plates, breaking and entering, and using a stolen credit card, as well as professional transgressions such as failing to attend client appointments, misappropriating a narcotic, attempting to steal from a client's family member, and billing for unmade visits.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Committee accepted the College's submission, ordering an oral reprimand and the immediate revocation of the member's certificate of registration, emphasizing specific and general deterrence and the member's ungovernability.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for professional misconduct.

The allegations included criminal convictions for possession of stolen property, break and enter, and using a stolen credit card, as well as workplace misconduct including failing to attend scheduled home care appointments, billing for unmade visits, and misappropriating narcotics from a client.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations proven on a balance of probabilities, relying on documentary evidence, witness testimony, and expert opinion.

The Committee concluded the nurse's actions demonstrated deliberate deceit and moral failing, constituting disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by accessing the electronic medical records of 338 clients without consent or authorization over a two-year period.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member's conduct to be a breach of the standards of practice and dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration, including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The plaintiff broadcaster sought partial summary judgment to enforce payment of two dishonoured post‑dated cheques issued by the defendant in connection with a sports broadcasting agreement.

The defendant argued that equitable set‑off should apply because the cheques were issued for services to be rendered and the dispute did not involve international commerce.

The court held that under the Bills of Exchange Act equitable set‑off is not available as a defence to an action on a dishonoured cheque, and that the rule applies regardless of whether the transaction involves international trade or services yet to be performed.

Partial summary judgment was granted for the value of the dishonoured cheques.

However, because the defendant’s counterclaim raised triable issues, execution of the judgment was stayed on condition that the defendant pay the judgment amount with interest into court.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The Tribunal held a conference call to hear oral submissions.

The applicant argued that the application was not untimely and that the Vice-chair erred in dismissing it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to re-argue alleged errors.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of Law Society discipline proceedings.

The applicant argued that the Law Society hearing had completed, although no decision had been issued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no material change in circumstances, as the Law Society process remains outstanding until a decision is rendered and all appeals or reviews are finally determined.

The appellants sued the respondent for breach of contract, defamation, negligence, and injurious falsehood, alleging that their business proposal on a reality television show was edited to misrepresent its merits.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that the appellant had signed a comprehensive release.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the release gave the respondent sole discretion to edit the recording and barred the claims, and that there was no independent duty of good faith that could alter the express terms of the contract.

The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission panel that found him guilty of animal abuse and imposed penalties including a 90-day suspension and a fine.

The panel had conducted a trial de novo following a previous successful judicial review by the applicant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the panel applied the correct standard of proof and that its decision, based on circumstantial evidence, was reasonable.

The applicant, a lawyer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada and its discipline counsel.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because there was an ongoing Law Society discipline proceeding involving overlapping facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the advanced stage of the discipline hearing and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the Law Society proceedings.

The plaintiffs in three separate actions against the Government of Canada brought motions to strike Canada's Statements of Defence for failure to provide an adequate List of Documents.

In support, they served summonses to examine three government officials.

Canada brought a preliminary motion to quash the summonses, arguing it was immune from having its List of Documents challenged and that the summonses were an abuse of process.

The court dismissed Canada's motion, finding that the Crown's List of Documents can be challenged similarly to an Affidavit of Documents, and that the summonses were not an abuse of process, though the court imposed terms to prevent overreaching.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission, which found that the respondent was not obliged to pay $100,000 in investigatory costs.

The Panel concluded that the applicant's Director had given the respondent the option to not renew its licence and avoid paying the costs, an option the respondent accepted.

The Divisional Court held that the Director had the discretion to offer this option and that the Panel's decision was reasonable and correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.