Administrative Law

The Licensee, a registered insurance broker, pled guilty to professional misconduct for submitting 39 false health claims totaling $4,799.47 under her employer's group benefits plan.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Committee found the Licensee guilty of failing to act with integrity and ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and the completion of three hours of ethics education, noting her early admission of guilt and arrangement to repay the insurer as mitigating factors.

The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) brought discipline proceedings against a licensed broker and his brokerage for failing to process a policy cancellation request in a timely manner and for charging impermissible service fees on Facility Association policies.

The licensees pled guilty and submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission, finding that the licensees breached the Code of Conduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand and a $350 fine, noting the licensees' cooperation, lack of prior discipline history, and immediate cessation of the improper fees.

The Society of United Professionals appealed a Divisional Court decision affirming the Ontario Labour Relations Board's (OLRB) rulings regarding New Horizon System Solutions' refusal to disclose a Master Services Agreement (MSA).

The Society alleged violations of ss. 17 (duty to bargain in good faith) and 70 (interference with union representation) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable, concluding that the MSA was not necessary for the Society to carry out its representational duties under s. 70 and that the s. 17 application was premature when initially brought.

The court also found the OLRB's partial disclosure order under s. 17 and its reliance on counsel's representation regarding a specific MSA article to be reasonable.

The applicants sought to set aside a motion judge's order dismissing their application for leave to appeal under s. 131(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, arguing jurisdictional error.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding it barred by s. 131(3) of the POA, which prohibits appeals or reviews from leave decisions.

The court also found no jurisdictional failure even if the cited precedent applied.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of access to her grandchild and historical concerns regarding the apprehension of her own children.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the historical issues had already been decided by the court and the issue of access to the grandchild was currently before the court.

The applicant, a friend of the deceased mother of five children, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about the respondent society's care and supervision of the children.

The respondent argued the applicant lacked standing as she had not sought or received services from the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the applicant was a referent and not a parent or a person who sought or received services.

Consequently, the applicant lacked standing and the application was dismissed.

The Member, a registered practical nurse, faced disciplinary proceedings for failing to provide appropriate care to a psychiatric client who suffered an anxiety attack and was later found vital signs absent.

The Member failed to follow a physician's order for constant observation, failed to document his checks, and delayed initiating a Code Blue and CPR when the client was found unresponsive.

The client subsequently died.

The Member admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct.

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

The Member, a registered practical nurse, was randomly selected to participate in a practice assessment as part of the College's Quality Assurance program.

Despite multiple notifications and opportunities, the Member failed to participate or complete any portion of the process.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee.

The panel ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration, but declined to order costs.

The member was found to have committed professional misconduct relating to the emotional and physical abuse of a vulnerable client.

Following the findings, the College and the member presented a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a three-month suspension of the member's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, and terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The panel found the penalty addressed specific and general deterrence, remediation, and public protection, and fell within the range of reasonable outcomes for similar misconduct.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for misappropriating Zopiclone and Lorazepam from her workplace and providing Zopiclone to her partner without a prescription.

She had previously pled guilty to criminal theft for the same conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for practising nursing while her certificate of registration was suspended and for making false statements on her annual renewal form.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct, noting her persistent disregard for the regulatory process.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering an oral reprimand and the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for professional misconduct, alleging sexual abuse and failure to maintain the boundaries of the therapeutic nurse-client relationship.

The Member admitted to engaging in a sexual relationship, including sexual intercourse and exchanging sexually explicit emails, with a vulnerable psychiatric client while she was an inpatient and shortly after her discharge.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered that the Member be reprimanded, his certificate of registration be immediately revoked, and he reimburse the College up to $5,000 for any therapy funding accessed by the client.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing after finding the member nurse committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing a client.

The College sought mandatory revocation of the member's certificate of registration, a reprimand, and reimbursement for the client's therapy.

The member requested that the mandatory revocation be suspended pending his appeal.

The panel ordered immediate revocation, a reprimand, and up to $5,000 in reimbursement for therapy.

While acknowledging its jurisdiction to suspend a mandatory revocation, the panel declined to do so given the predatory nature of the abuse and the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

The Member, a Nurse Practitioner, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to participate in the College's Quality Assurance program, prescribing testosterone (a controlled substance) without authorization, and failing to document her assessment and treatment of two clients.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms and conditions including meetings with a nursing expert, a mentorship arrangement, and mandatory participation in the Quality Assurance program.

The Member's subsequent appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed.

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

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the member was aware of the order and failed to complete it, which constituted professional misconduct and dishonourable conduct.

The member's certificate of registration was suspended for four months, and she was ordered to complete the SCERP requirements and notify future employers of the decision.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for practising as a registered nurse while her certificate of registration was suspended, falsifying records, and failing to comply with a previous discipline order.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, including disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration and an oral reprimand.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct including forging physician orders, administering medication without authorization, and failing to appropriately respond when a piece of a urinary catheter remained inside a client.

The Member had previously been convicted criminally for acting on the forged documents.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and various terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member, a registered nurse, sexually abused a client and breached standards of practice during a night shift.

The allegations included directing the client to expose her breasts, exposing her vaginal area during a bladder scan, and inappropriately touching her genitals during a catheterization.

The Discipline Committee dismissed all allegations, finding the client's testimony to be highly unreliable, inconsistent, and likely the result of misremembered or misinterpreted events due to her altered emotional state and medications.

The College failed to meet its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of his son from all schools of the respondent school board.

The pupil had been expelled after allegedly threatening to kill another student.

The Board found that the school board's policy regarding the alleged misconduct was permissive rather than mandatory regarding suspensions.

Under the Education Act, a pupil can only be expelled for an activity if the school board's policy mandates a suspension for that activity.

Consequently, the Board quashed the expulsion and ordered the pupil's record expunged.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decision to contact his friend.

The society's worker had contacted the friend after receiving a report that her granddaughter was visiting the applicant unsupervised, while his access to his own children was supervised.

The Board found that the worker had provided sufficient explanation to the applicant during their telephone conversation, given her limited knowledge of his file and the fact that no specific personal information was disclosed.

The application was dismissed.