11 total
Massage therapist reprimanded and ordered to complete education for failing to obtain consent and keep records.
The registrant, a massage therapist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to obtain informed consent, discuss draping options, and keep accurate records.
The Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty.
The registrant was reprimanded, ordered to complete further education and reflection, and required to pay costs of $5,110.
Sexual abuse allegations against sonographer dismissed due to unreliable patient evidence and physical improbability.
The College alleged that the registrant, a diagnostic medical sonographer, engaged in professional misconduct and sexual abuse during an echocardiogram.
The allegations included touching a patient's buttocks, watching her wipe gel off her chest, and blocking the treatment room doorway.
The Discipline Tribunal found the patient's evidence to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and the physical improbability of the alleged touching.
The Tribunal concluded that the College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities and made no finding of professional misconduct.
Joint penalty submission accepted for consent-related professional misconduct.
In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted misconduct arising from assessment of a client's gluteal muscles without prior written informed consent during a massage therapy appointment.
The Tribunal held that the admitted conduct breached consent, sexual abuse prevention, and professional boundaries standards, and constituted professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94.
Applying the Anthony-Cook public-interest threshold for joint submissions, the Tribunal accepted the jointly proposed penalty because it was within the range for similar cases and was not contrary to the public interest.
The Tribunal imposed a one-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial terms, and costs of $5,852 payable by installments.
Member's motion to dismiss discipline allegations and exclude evidence from undercover investigation denied.
The Member brought a motion in a disciplinary proceeding seeking to dismiss a notice of hearing, exclude evidence obtained during an undercover investigation, and obtain disclosure of an investigative file concerning another member.
The Member argued he had no obligation to cooperate with an investigation into another member.
The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding that the duty to cooperate under the Health Professions Procedural Code applies even when the member is not the subject of the investigation.
The Committee also found the College had reasonable and probable grounds to commence the investigation and declined to exclude evidence or order further disclosure at the preliminary stage.
Sexual abuse finding required revocation, funding reimbursement, and substantial costs.
Following a prior finding of professional misconduct including sexual abuse of a client, the discipline tribunal determined penalty and costs.
Applying the mandatory consequences under the Health Professions Procedural Code, it ordered a reprimand and immediate revocation where the sexual abuse consisted of sexual touching of the client's breasts.
The tribunal also ordered reimbursement of therapy and counselling funding up to the statutory maximum, required security in a reduced amount because the registrant could no longer practise and earn income as a massage therapist, and fixed costs payable by long-term installments.
A publication restriction protecting the client's identity remained in place.
Appeal allowed and professional misconduct finding set aside due to flawed credibility assessment of complainant.
The appellant, a registered massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexual abuse of a client.
The Divisional Court found that the Committee made a palpable and overriding error in its credibility assessment of the complainant.
Although the Committee rejected the complainant's allegation that the appellant touched her vagina because her evidence was inconsistent and implausible, it failed to consider how these adverse findings affected her overall reliability regarding the other allegations.
The appeal was granted, the finding of professional misconduct was set aside, and the court declined to remit the matter for a re-hearing.
Joint penalty submission accepted for false billing and record falsification misconduct.
The registrant admitted professional misconduct arising from several years of improper insurance billing, falsified treatment notes and receipts, and failures to keep required records.
The Tribunal applied the joint-submission standard and accepted a jointly proposed penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and was not contrary to the public interest.
In doing so, it emphasized public protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation, and compared the proposed disposition to prior discipline decisions involving false receipts and deficient record keeping.
The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, specified educational and compliance conditions, and costs.
Application for judicial review seeking unredacted police file dismissed as premature pending ICRC decision.
The applicant, a dentist facing disciplinary proceedings before the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) regarding allegations of sexual abuse, brought an application for judicial review seeking mandamus to compel the College to obtain an unredacted copy of a police file.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.
The court found that the administrative proceeding was not complete, as the ICRC had not yet made its decision and the applicant still had the opportunity to make submissions to the ICRC regarding the need for the unredacted documents.
The court concluded there were no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering in the ongoing administrative process.
Reprimand imposed for failure to retain a client health record.
In a professional discipline penalty decision, the tribunal addressed misconduct arising solely from the registrant’s failure to retain a client health record for the required period.
After earlier dismissing sexual abuse, physical abuse, and standards allegations, the tribunal accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand and, if the registrant returns to practice, a requirement to complete the College’s record-keeping e-workshop.
The tribunal held the proposed sanction met public protection, deterrence, remediation, and public interest objectives.
No costs were ordered, given the admission on the record-keeping issue and the dismissal of the more serious allegations that consumed most of the hearing.
Registrant suspended for three months and ordered to pay $25,000 in costs for record-keeping and cooperation failures.
The Discipline Tribunal determined the penalty and costs following findings of professional misconduct against the registrant for failing to maintain proper records and failing to cooperate with the College and CBI Health.
The College sought a six-month suspension and $88,750.27 in costs.
The Tribunal ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and completion of remedial courses and mentorship.
Taking into account the registrant's financial circumstances, lack of prior disciplinary history, and the fact that she successfully defended against the most serious clinical allegations, the Tribunal ordered costs of $25,000 payable over five years.
Speech-language pathologist suspended three months for unauthorized access to patient records and time theft.
The registrant, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for improperly accessing the medical records of over 100 patients and committing time theft by claiming time she did not work.
The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it did not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.
The Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension, a reprimand, terms and conditions including coaching and monitoring, repayment of the stolen time to the hospital, and $2,000 in costs.
