Brian John Gover

The Ontario College of Teachers and the member brought a joint motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing.

The College advised that there was no evidence to support the allegations.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations, finding the resolution to be in the public interest.

Credit Suisse First Boston Canada Inc. (CSFB) applied for a hearing and review of a decision by the hearing panel of Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS) that disqualified its counsel, Stikeman Elliott, from acting in an RS proceeding.

RS alleged that Stikeman Elliott was in a conflict of interest because it had previously advised the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) on the creation of RS, and was now raising defences on behalf of CSFB that attacked the very regulatory structure it helped create.

The Ontario Securities Commission upheld the disqualification, finding that Stikeman Elliott owed a subsisting duty of loyalty to RS as a former client and possessed relevant confidential information with a risk of misuse.

The Commission concluded that permitting the law firm to repudiate its own prior legal advice would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant brought a motion to stay proceedings before the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, alleging that its witnesses had been interfered with by their supervisor.

During an adjournment, the LCBO retained an investigator to interview the witnesses.

The applicant sought to compel the investigator's attendance and the production of witness statements to support its stay motion.

The Commission refused to issue the summons, finding the evidence irrelevant.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the Commission breached natural justice by precluding the applicant from leading material evidence.

The Court ordered the Commission to issue a summons for the investigator and require the production of the witness statements, finding they were not protected by solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving inappropriate behaviour toward a 13-year-old female student, including writing inappropriate notes, driving her to his home, and meeting her outside of school.

The member pleaded guilty to the allegations and admitted to failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a six-month suspension of the member's certificate, which was waived on the condition that he complete a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries and undergo two teacher performance appraisals.

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services that set aside a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct against a police officer.

The officer had been accused of sexually assaulting a woman while off-duty in the Dominican Republic.

The Hearing Officer found the complainant credible and ordered the officer dismissed.

The Commission overturned this decision, finding the complainant's evidence incredible.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Commission failed to apply the correct standard of review (reasonableness) and improperly substituted its own credibility findings for those of the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer's decision and penalty of dismissal were restored.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being convicted criminally of assaulting a peace officer while off-duty.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The member was reprimanded, the decision was ordered to be published, and the member provided an undertaking to notify any future teaching employers of the incident and have them provide quarterly reports to the College for two years.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an order of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that granted intervenor status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in two stay motions.

The stay motions were based on allegations of witness tampering by an LCBO employee and the improper distribution of transcripts.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the Board erred in granting intervenor status.

The Court concluded that the LCBO had no interest in the stay motions and its intervention would introduce a distortion into the adversarial process.

The order granting standing to the LCBO was quashed.

The applicant brought an application to quash an order of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that granted intervenor status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in two stay motions.

The stay motions were based on allegations of witness tampering by an LCBO employee.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision to grant intervenor status was incorrect, as the LCBO had no interest in the stay motions and its intervention would distort the adversarial process.

The order granting standing to the LCBO was quashed.

The applicants sought judicial review of orders made by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario directing that a hearing proceed in camera and restricting the attendance of counsel for interested persons.

The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.

The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.

The applicant sought judicial review of three orders made by a panel of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that directed a hearing to proceed in camera and excluded counsel for interested persons.

The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.

The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct after mistakenly injecting a patient with potassium chloride instead of normal saline and heparin, resulting in the patient's death.

The Member admitted to the allegations and the Discipline Committee found her guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a one-month suspension of her certificate of registration, imposed terms and conditions including a return to work program and learning plan, and required her to appear for a reprimand, noting she had already served a three-month employment suspension.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving the sexual abuse of a student.

The Discipline Committee relied on findings from a related criminal proceeding, which established that the member engaged in sexual activity with the student, including fellatio, at the member's home.

The Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the immediate revocation of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding allegations that the member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain professional standards, issuing false statements, and engaging in disgraceful conduct.

The member did not attend but entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the College.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted the agreement, which required the member to undergo a psychological assessment, comply with any recommended treatment, and receive a reprimand.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a Registered Practical Nurse for emotionally and verbally abusing a quadriplegic client and misappropriating his property while acting as his live-in caregiver.

The Discipline Committee found that the nurse breached therapeutic boundaries, used vulgar language towards the client in public, and used his credit cards and property without authorization.

The panel found the member guilty of professional misconduct, ordered a reprimand, imposed conditions on her certificate, and suspended her registration for a minimum of six months.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a registered nurse for allegedly striking a psychiatric patient and falsifying the patient's records to conceal the incident.

The Discipline Committee found that the College failed to prove the nurse deliberately struck the patient, as the contact may have been defensive.

However, the Committee found the nurse guilty of professional misconduct for deliberately falsifying clinical records and incident reports to hide his involvement in the altercation.

The nurse's certificate of registration was suspended for 15 months, with conditions for practice monitoring upon return to employment.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought a preliminary motion to add the Ministry of Education and Training and Mr. André Lalonde as respondents to two human rights complaints regarding job competitions.

The complaints were originally filed against the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the CEFCUT.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding it premature to add the Ministry or Mr. Lalonde in his personal capacity given the lack of evidence that Mr. Lalonde was acting as an employee of the Ministry rather than the school boards during his secondment, and considering the significant delay since the complaints were filed.

The young offender appellant challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's alternative measures programme, arguing that its admission criteria infringed sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, relying on its concurrent judgment in R. v. S. (G.), which held that section 4 of the Young Offenders Act does not oblige provinces to implement such a programme and that the admission criteria do not infringe the Charter.

The appellant, a young offender, challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's alternative measures programme, arguing that its admission criteria infringed sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, relying on its concurrent judgment in R. v. S. (G.), which held that section 4 of the Young Offenders Act does not oblige provinces to implement such a programme and that the admission criteria do not infringe the Charter.

The youth appellant was charged with property offences.

The youth court judge stayed the proceedings, finding that Ontario's alternative measures program under the Young Offenders Act violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal overturned the stay.

Relying on its concurrent decision in R. v. S.(G.), the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the program's admission criteria do not infringe the Charter.

The appellant, a young offender, challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's alternative measures program, arguing its admission criteria violated sections 15(1) and 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as moot, relying on a concurrent judgment which held that section 4 of the Young Offenders Act does not oblige provinces to implement such programs.

The appellant conceded that if the programs are a matter of provincial option, no remedy is available.