Andrew McKenna

The registrant was found to have committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain the standard of practice and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct during a prenatal appointment, specifically regarding inappropriate breast and spine examinations without informed consent.

At the penalty hearing, the Tribunal accepted a joint recommendation from the parties.

The registrant was ordered to be reprimanded, his certificate of registration was suspended for four months, and conditions were imposed requiring a practice monitor for all intimate examinations for a minimum of two years.

The registrant was also ordered to pay $26,740 in costs.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought professional misconduct proceedings against the registrant, a family medicine practitioner.

The registrant admitted to failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession through unnecessary treatments, inadequate record-keeping, and improperly performed procedures.

He also did not contest allegations of touching a patient in sensitive areas without adequate warning or explanation.

The Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct.

Applying the test for joint submissions, the Tribunal accepted the jointly proposed penalty, ordering a four-month suspension, extensive terms, conditions, and limitations on his certificate of registration, and costs of $6,000.

The College alleged that the registrant physician sexually abused a female patient and failed to maintain the standard of practice during a prenatal appointment.

The Tribunal found that the registrant's examination of the patient's breasts through her clothing and his persistence in examining her spine despite her objections failed to meet the standard of practice.

The Tribunal also found that the substandard breast exam, performed without adequate consent, constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the College did not prove the allegations of sexual abuse, as the breast touching was not of a sexual nature and the evidence regarding genital touching was insufficiently reliable.

The Registrant, a dental hygienist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for assisting and receiving assistance from another registrant while completing an online Quality Assurance Test, contrary to the rules.

The hearing proceeded on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs.

The Discipline Committee found the Registrant committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, completion of an ethics course, and $3,000 in costs.

The College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the Registrant for receiving and providing unauthorized assistance while completing an online Quality Assurance Test.

The hearing proceeded on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs.

The Discipline Committee found that the Registrant committed professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, completion of an ethics course, and $3,000 in costs.

The College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario and the respondent registrant presented a Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs following a finding of professional misconduct.

The proposed penalty included a reprimand, a two-month suspension, completion of an ethics course, and $5,000 in costs.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding it reasonable and in the public interest, as it appropriately addressed the principles of specific and general deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation.

The Discipline Committee of the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario held a hearing on penalty and costs regarding the respondent.

The parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs, which included a reprimand, a two-month suspension, completion of an ethics course, and $5,000 in costs.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, finding it reasonable and in the public interest, as it addressed principles of specific and general deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation.

The Discipline Committee held a hearing regarding penalty and costs for the registrant following a finding of professional misconduct.

The parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs, which included a reprimand, a two-month suspension, completion of an ethics course, and $5,000 in costs.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, finding it reasonable and in the public interest, as it appropriately addressed the principles of specific and general deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation.

A psychologist admitted to professional misconduct for failing to report allegations of child abuse to the Children's Aid Society over a seven-year period, contrary to section 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Discipline Committee accepted the admission and a joint submission on penalty including a reprimand and remedial coursework.

A majority of the panel ordered a two-month suspension of his certificate of registration, emphasizing the seriousness of the failure to report and the need for general deterrence.

A minority would have imposed a one-month suspension, remitted upon completion of the remedial requirements.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for several common element defects in a 14-storey building constructed by Claridge Homes.

The Tribunal found that the claims regarding cold walls, lack of window drawing details, and air leakage were not warranted.

However, the Tribunal found that excess condensation on windows and patio doors caused by substandard insulation, and deficient insulation of the dual-temperature pipe system, were breaches of the statutory warranty.

The Tribunal awarded $166,000 plus HST for the window insulation repairs and $906,285 plus HST for the pipe insulation repairs, to be paid from the guarantee fund.

The Tribunal also held that the appellant's delay in bringing the claim did not bar recovery.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to adequately supervise an unregistered psychotherapist and failing to maintain proper clinical and billing records.

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

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and a 12-month individualized coaching program at the member's expense.

The applicant homeowner brought an omnibus pre-hearing motion seeking summary judgment, an order extending warranties, oral discovery, and further disclosure regarding a claim for water penetration in their new home's basement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to grant the substantive relief sought on a pre-hearing motion.

The Tribunal also declined to exercise its procedural discretion to order further particulars or oral discovery, noting the respondent had already made fulsome disclosure and oral discovery is not provided for in the Tribunal's Rules.

The Applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to reverse Tarion's denial of a warranty claim, and requested costs due to late disclosure by the Respondent and Added Party.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defects were excluded from warranty coverage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal also denied the request for costs, noting that the late disclosure was inadvertent, did not cause undue prejudice, and did not meet the threshold for unreasonable or bad faith conduct.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for reimbursement of a home inspector's invoice, replacement of hardwood flooring, and installation of a new kitchen sink in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the cost of consultation services is not a prescribed damage under Regulation 892.

Furthermore, the claims for the flooring and sink were not warranted substitutions because the specific items requested by the applicants were not explicitly detailed in the written Agreement of Purchase and Sale.