Hailey Brianna Bruckner

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent for failing to comply with an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had ordered the respondent to complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (SCERP) and to appear for an in-person caution.

The respondent did not attend the discipline hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the respondent committed professional misconduct by failing to complete the SCERP and failing to attend the caution, which constituted dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and terms and conditions on the respondent's certificate of registration.

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

The respondent admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found that the respondent's failure to comply with the order constituted unprofessional and dishonourable conduct.

The Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a 4-month suspension of the respondent's certificate of registration, and imposed terms and conditions requiring the completion of the SCERP and meetings with a Regulatory Expert.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for stealing a sharps container and 10 vials of Dilaudid from her workplace, and for failing to report the resulting criminal charges for theft under $5,000 to the College.

The Member admitted to the allegations, citing a mental health crisis at the time of the thefts.

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

The Member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for 5 months, and conditions including employer notification and a restriction on independent practice were imposed.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct including failing to administer medications, falsifying patient records, failing to assess a patient after a fall, and making inappropriate remarks to a colleague.

The hearing proceeded on an uncontested basis with an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed the alleged acts of professional misconduct.

As the Member had already signed an undertaking to permanently resign from the College, the Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order and imposed a penalty of an oral reprimand.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the Member for sexually abusing a vulnerable patient and sexually harassing a social work student.

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 by engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient and making sexually explicit comments to a colleague.

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

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for documenting and billing for 13 home care visits that he did not attend while the patient was out of the country.

The Member admitted to the allegations, including falsifying records, misappropriating property, and engaging in dishonourable conduct.

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

The Member was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was suspended for three months, and conditions were imposed on his practice, including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification requirements.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their summary judgment motion and granting summary judgment and a permanent stay to the respondents.

The core issue was the appellants' failure to immediately disclose settlement agreements with other defendants, which altered the litigation's adversarial landscape.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that these contingent settlement agreements, which included provisions for private evidence gathering and financial incentives for cooperation, changed the adversarial relationship into a cooperative one, triggering the immediate disclosure rule from Handley Estate.

The court reiterated that immediate disclosure is mandatory, regardless of contingencies or confidentiality clauses, and that a stay of proceedings is the appropriate remedy for such an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for stealing $125 from a vulnerable patient's room at a retirement residence and failing to report the resulting criminal charges and findings of guilt to the College.

The Member admitted to the allegations and pled guilty to two counts of theft under $5000 in criminal court.

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

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a 4-month suspension, and various conditions on the Member's certificate of registration, including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification requirements.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to report investigations by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario and for providing false employment information on her annual membership renewal forms.

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

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms and conditions including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and 18 months of employer notification.

The plaintiff, a general contractor, commenced an action against the defendant mechanical subcontractor regarding a construction project.

The defendant had previously commenced a construction lien action which was referred to a Master for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to refer this action to the same Master to be tried with or immediately following the lien action, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The court granted the consent order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants Elko and its principal for knowing receipt and knowing assistance, alleging they participated in a scheme to divert business from a family company to avoid a prior judgment.

Elko brought a motion to stay the action because the plaintiffs failed to disclose settlement agreements with co-defendants that changed the adversarial landscape.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion and granted summary judgment in favour of Elko, finding no evidence that Elko had actual or constructive knowledge of the breach of fiduciary duty.

In the alternative, the court held it would have permanently stayed the action due to the plaintiffs' failure to immediately disclose the settlement agreements, which prejudiced Elko.

The Union sought to consolidate a grievance alleging harassment and a poisoned work environment with another grievance regarding compensation for time spent in a police investigation.

The Arbitrator declined to consolidate the matters, finding they involved different facts, locations, and managers.

The Employer objected to the Union's attempt to expand the scope of the grievance to include the grievor's subsequent transfer to another store, which the Union alleged was a reprisal.

The Arbitrator scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the transfer should be included in the scope of the grievance and made orders for production and particulars.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for a Mareva injunction in a complex commercial fraud action, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to one group of defendants, finding that while a strong prima facie case of fraud was established against them, the injunction was denied on other grounds.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to two other groups of defendants against whom the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud.

The court also addressed costs related to advance funding applications under the Canadian Business Corporations Act.

The applicants, former officers of the respondent corporation, brought applications for advance funding of their legal fees to defend an action alleging complex commercial fraud.

The applications were brought pursuant to the corporation's Unanimous Shareholders Agreement and section 124 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test to determine if advance funding should be denied due to bad faith.

The court dismissed the application of the former CEO, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud had been established against him in a related Mareva injunction motion.

The court granted the application of the former COO, as the evidence did not establish a strong prima facie case of fraud against him.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction (asset freezing order) against several defendants, alleging a complex commercial fraud involving misappropriated funds, illicit acquisition fees, and kickbacks across multiple real estate development projects.

While the court found a strong prima facie case of fraud against the defendant Lee regarding his receipt of concealed acquisition fees, it found no such case against the other responding defendants.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the motion against all defendants because the plaintiffs failed to establish a real risk of asset dissipation, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the extraordinary remedy.