Fredrick Ramsay Schumann

The Member, a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner and acupuncturist, admitted to professional misconduct including sexual abuse, boundary violations, and failing to obtain informed consent.

The Member made inappropriate personal and sexual remarks to a patient, unclasped her bra without informed consent, and failed to follow communication standards.

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

The Member was reprimanded, suspended for four months (with one month remitted), required to complete an ethics course, ordered to reimburse the College up to $17,370 for patient therapy funding, and ordered to pay $5,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed a 22-month jail sentence for accessing and possessing child pornography, seeking a conditional sentence and arguing errors in considering an unconstitutional mandatory minimum and failing to weigh health problems.

The Crown conceded the unconstitutionality of the minimum but argued the sentence was fit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the 22-month sentence, finding it appropriate given the nature and volume of the material, and that health issues were considered.

However, on consent, the court allowed the appeal to substitute a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) registration for the lifetime order, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Ndhlovu.

The College and the member jointly requested an indefinite adjournment of the discipline hearing.

The member had signed an Acknowledgement and Undertaking to Resign and Never Reapply, agreeing to resign his registration immediately and never reapply in Canada.

The member also agreed to reimburse the College for funding provided to a complainant.

The Discipline Committee granted the request, finding that the undertaking protected the public and represented an effective use of resources, and ordered the matter indefinitely stayed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought costs following the dismissal of an application for judicial review and related motions brought by a physician and her patients.

The applicants argued they were public interest litigants and should pay no costs, or alternatively, reduced costs.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest litigant argument, finding the physician was pursuing private and pecuniary interests in a dispute with her regulator, and the patients lacked standing.

The court ordered the patients to pay $8,000 and the physician to pay $18,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The member, a registered acupuncturist and massage therapist, admitted to professional misconduct for issuing pre-signed blank receipts and failing to maintain adequate patient records over a ten-year period.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The member was reprimanded, suspended for four months, required to complete ethics and record-keeping courses, subjected to a practice audit, and ordered to pay $5,000 in costs.

The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario held a discipline hearing regarding allegations that the member issued false receipts for services not rendered, failed to maintain proper patient records, and obstructed a College investigation.

The member did not attend the hearing.

Based on evidence from an undercover investigator and a College investigator, the panel found the member engaged in professional misconduct, including fraudulent billing and physically obstructing the investigator.

The panel revoked the member's certificate of registration and ordered her to pay $25,000 in costs.

The member, a registered acupuncturist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for issuing false receipts, failing to maintain proper records, and facilitating the sale of sexual services at his clinics.

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

The Discipline Committee found the member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a 24-month suspension, terms and conditions including coursework and practice inspections, and $10,000 in costs.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) to investigate her, impose interim restrictions, and subsequently suspend her medical license for issuing unjustified COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

A group of anonymous patients also sought judicial review, arguing the investigation infringed their privacy and autonomy.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' application for lack of standing.

The court dismissed the physician's application, finding the challenge to the investigation decision premature and the interim restriction and suspension decisions reasonable given the immediate risk to patient safety.

The court also granted the CPSO's motion for a publication ban to protect the identities of complainants.

The College alleged that the respondent acupuncturist engaged in professional misconduct by advising a patient without a thyroid to stop taking his thyroid medication, claiming that acupuncture would regrow the gland.

The patient suffered severe hypothyroidism and was hospitalized.

The Discipline Committee proceeded in the respondent's absence and found that he provided unnecessary and dangerous treatment outside his scope of practice, failed to refer the patient to a medical doctor, and falsified patient records to conceal his actions.

The Committee concluded that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted allegations arising from prolonged misuse of the titles "Doctor", "Dr.", "psychotherapist", and "registered psychotherapist" while providing or advertising healthcare services.

The Panel found professional misconduct proved on a balance of probabilities under the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, including misrepresentation of qualifications, misleading advertising, improper record-keeping, contraventions of title restrictions, and unprofessional conduct.

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

The resulting order imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, remedial ethics and reflective conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple firearm-related charges, arguing that his Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 were breached due to an unlawful arrest and subsequent search, and that the trial judge erred in admitting the seized evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and search incident to arrest, based on the totality of the circumstances including confidential informant information, observed drug transactions, and the dynamic nature of the situation.

The court also found no error in the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and sought leave to appeal his four-year global sentence.

The conviction appeal was abandoned by the appellant.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge ignored mitigating circumstances and rigidly applied sentencing ranges.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge was aware of the appellant's background and considered rehabilitative potential.

It also held that while rigid application of ranges is an error, it only warrants intervention if the sentence is disproportionate.

The court found the sentence fit and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant, Arthur Colucci, appealed a judgment declaring that he held a land use permit in trust for himself and the respondents (his brother and brother-in-law) as beneficial owners.

The core issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in finding an undocumented trust agreement existed, particularly regarding the certainty of intention, given the appellant's alternate explanation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's application of an objective standard to ascertain intention, considering all surrounding circumstances and the parties' conduct, and deferring to the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility.

The appellant, a condominium management provider, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to attach a condition to its licence.

The condition would prohibit a 50% shareholder, who had previously directed condominium funds to his own companies and faced criminal charges, from being an 'interested person' in the appellant.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar has broad discretion under section 40 of the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015 to impose appropriate conditions.

Given the shareholder's egregious past conduct and his ability to indirectly control the appellant, the Tribunal concluded the condition was necessary to protect the public and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal.

The Auditor General of Ontario sought declarations that it had the authority under the Auditor General Act to compel grant recipients, specifically Laurentian University, to provide information and records subject to solicitor-client, litigation, or settlement privilege for audit purposes.

Laurentian University argued that the Act did not contain the clear and unambiguous language required to abrogate such fundamental privileges.

The court dismissed the Auditor General's application, holding that sections 10 and 27.1 of the Auditor General Act did not explicitly or unambiguously confer the power to compel disclosure of privileged information, and that privilege cannot be abrogated by inference.

The appellant, Kellie-Lynne Gracie, appealed her conviction for robbery.

She argued that the trial judge reversed the onus of proof and made an unreasonable inference regarding her involvement in the robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge, despite using the term "prima facie" did not reverse the onus of proof or improperly use the appellant's failure to testify as a make-weight.

The court concluded that the cumulative circumstantial evidence reasonably supported the trial judge's inference that the appellant was a party to the planned robbery.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Toronto District School Board's decision to reduce the number of French immersion senior kindergarten classes at Palmerston Avenue Junior Public School from two to one.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to reallocate programs did not affect the rights, interests, or privileges of the applicants, and therefore did not attract a duty of procedural fairness.

The court also found that the Board's decision was substantively reasonable and that the Board did not create a legitimate expectation that a different process would be followed.

The member, a registered traditional Chinese medicine practitioner and acupuncturist, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to improper billing and record-keeping.

According to an Agreed Statement of Facts, the member provided false or misleading receipts for massage therapy and acupuncture treatments, including to an undercover College investigator, and failed to maintain adequate patient records.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, terms and conditions requiring ethics and record-keeping courses, practice assessments, and $3,500 in costs.

The member, a registered chiropodist, admitted to professional misconduct for offering free shoes with the purchase of orthotics, failing to keep adequate records, and practising in a conflict of interest.

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

The Committee also accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs, ordering an oral reprimand, an eight-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completing ethics and records courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and $10,000 in costs.

The applicant, Arthur Rule, sought leave to appeal his 22-month custodial sentence for possessing and accessing child pornography and bail pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted both applications.

The sentencing judge had misstated the law regarding the availability of conditional sentences for these offences and failed to adequately consider a conditional sentence as an alternative to incarceration.

Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated unnecessary hardship due to severe medical conditions requiring complex daily care that would be difficult to manage in custody.

The court found the appeal had sufficient merit and that detention was not necessary in the public interest, as there were no public safety or flight concerns.