Health Law

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted allegations that he misrepresented himself as a friend's social worker in communications with another regulator and disclosed a client's personal health and identifying information to that friend without consent.

The panel found the admitted facts proved professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, handbook standards, and PHIPA, including dishonourable and unprofessional conduct, while stopping short of classifying the conduct as disgraceful because of significant mitigating personal health circumstances.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, remediation, and the principle that a joint submission should be accepted unless contrary to the public interest.

The resulting order imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice-related educational and regulatory conditions, publication, 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.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct based on admitted boundary crossings with a vulnerable former client in an addiction treatment context, including an intimate and sexual relationship shortly after the counselling relationship, receipt of private aftercare fees, and misuse of a protected professional title before registration.

The panel held that the misconduct reflected on current suitability to practise and supported jurisdiction even though some conduct predated registration.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed order imposing a reprimand, revocation, a five-year prohibition on re-application, publication, and costs.

The panel emphasized public protection, deterrence, abuse of trust, and the seriousness of title misuse.

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.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct arising from an instructor-registrant’s boundary violations with students and a supervisee who were also clients.

The admitted facts established repeated personal disclosures in class, requests for loans and rides, exploitation of information obtained through the professional relationship, and conflicts of interest contrary to the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice.

The panel held the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, though not disgraceful in light of confidential health-related mitigating circumstances.

It accepted a joint submission on penalty as consistent with the public interest, ordering a reprimand, a conditional four-month suspension tied to any future reactivation, remedial training and supervision terms, publication, and $1,000 in costs.

Discipline proceeding arising from a registrant’s admitted sexual relationship with a former or active psychotherapy/counselling client, together with related boundary violations and nondisclosure of a prior complaint to another professional body.

The Panel held that the timing dispute over whether the client was still active when the sexual relationship commenced was immaterial because the professional standards prohibited sexual relations at any time following termination where psychotherapy or counselling had been provided.

The admitted misconduct was found to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, with significant aggravating factors including the client’s vulnerabilities, enduring psychological harm, and failure to disclose the earlier complaint on registration and renewals.

The Panel accepted a joint submission on penalty as consistent with the public interest and ordered a written reprimand, publication, and costs, in the context of the registrant’s irrevocable surrender and undertaking never to practise again.

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 professional discipline hearing subject to a publication ban, the member admitted boundary violations and sexual conduct with a vulnerable client following the provision of counselling-related social work services.

The Panel found professional misconduct under the governing statute and regulation, including sexual misconduct, failure to maintain proper boundaries, failure to prioritize the client's interests, and recordkeeping failures.

The Panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, holding that departure was unwarranted absent a risk to public confidence in the discipline process.

The member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was revoked, reinstatement was barred for five years, publication was ordered, and costs of $3,000.00 were imposed.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted altering a patient record to change the treatment date, submitting a false insurance claim, and providing misleading information to an insurer.

The panel found professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the applicable professional misconduct regulation, concluding the conduct was dishonest and reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, holding that it fell within the appropriate range and served public protection, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The member received a reprimand, a two-month suspension, remedial ethics education, practice monitoring conditions, and a $3000 costs order.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from criminal convictions for impaired operation causing death, dangerous operation causing death, and breach of recognizance.

The panel held that the criminal conduct, although outside a clinical setting, was relevant to the provision of dental care to the public because it demonstrated a serious disregard for public safety and undermined fundamental public expectations of regulated health professionals.

The panel accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a six-month suspension, practice monitoring and treatment-related conditions, and costs.

A publication ban was made permanent over certain personal information in the member’s affidavit.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted multiple acts of misconduct arising from opioid prescribing to several patients over a prolonged period.

The panel found the admissions and agreed facts established failures to document diagnosis and justification, excessive quantities and frequency of opioid prescriptions, inadequate charting, and a lack of professional judgment, particularly concerning one patient.

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

The member received a four-month suspension, a permanent restriction on prescribing narcotic and controlled drugs, mandatory courses, practice monitoring, and costs.

Professional discipline decision arising from a member's admissions that she performed or billed for fixed prosthodontic treatment despite an undertaking and remediation order restricting that work, and that she used a business name inconsistent with the register.

The panel held that the agreed facts substantiated all allegations of professional misconduct on a balance of probabilities and emphasized the member's disregard for patient protection and regulatory obligations.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction consisting of a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, extensive practice conditions, mentoring, monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

A dental discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant planned and performed unnecessary oral surgery on a minor under general anaesthesia after reviewing another patient's CBCT scan and failing to review the patient chart.

The panel also found that informed consent was not obtained because the discussion of the procedure was insufficient, the written consent referred to the wrong tooth, and consent was not re-confirmed on the day of surgery.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel ordered a reprimand, completion of an informed-consent course, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from deficient recordkeeping and improper use of billing codes that resulted in insurance claims and related documents containing improper statements for multiple patients.

The tribunal accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the misconduct proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraph 28 of section 2 of Ontario Regulation 853.

Applying the joint penalty submission, the tribunal imposed a reprimand, mandatory remedial courses in recordkeeping and billing, practice monitoring for twenty-four months after course completion, and costs.

A publication restriction protecting patient identities was also ordered under s. 45(3).

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.

Following liability findings for multiple forms of professional misconduct in dental practice, the discipline panel addressed penalty and costs on an uncontested joint submission.

The misconduct included unnecessary dental services, false or misleading documentation and claims, excessive or unreasonable fees, failure to collect co-payments properly, deficient records, and misconduct tied to financial benefit.

The panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a 12-month suspension, extensive suspension and practice conditions, remedial coursework, and monitoring.

The panel held that the proposed sanction was fair and reasonable, served specific and general deterrence, protected the public, and supported rehabilitation.

Costs of $200,000 were also ordered, representing approximately one third of the College’s hearing costs.

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.

A professional discipline panel found that the member committed professional misconduct arising from a systemic pattern of unnecessary radiographs, false and misleading insurance billings, billing for services not performed, charging excessive or unreasonable fees, failing to collect co-payments, and failing to provide complete patient records to the regulator.

Applying the civil standard of proof from F.H. v McDougall, the panel relied heavily on documentary records and found the billing discrepancies too numerous and persistent to be explained as innocent clerical mistakes.

The panel rejected the position that responsibility for billing errors could be delegated to staff, holding the clinic owner responsible for the conduct of the office and the claims submitted under his name.

The publication restriction protecting patient identities remained in force.

Discipline proceeding arising from a complaint and investigation concerning a dentist’s long-term treatment of four members of the same family.

The panel accepted a guilty plea and agreed statement of facts establishing supervised neglect, failures in diagnosis and treatment, inadequate recordkeeping, absence of documented informed consent, and improper lorazepam prescribing for one patient.

The panel found professional misconduct on all allegations except one disputed particular under the prescribing allegation.

On penalty, the panel accepted a joint submission after the member voluntarily undertook to permanently resign, and ordered a reprimand and $5,000 in costs.

Professional discipline decision arising from a dentist’s admitted failure to respond appropriately to repeated written enquiries from the regulator, failure to produce and maintain a patient record, and failure to cooperate with an investigation.

The panel accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found all misconduct allegations proven, except that the College did not seek a finding that the member was ungovernable.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty imposing an immediate suspension until the patient record is produced, followed by a consecutive three-month suspension, remedial education, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication restriction protected the identities of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.