Ian Jonathan Roland

The College of Psychologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against Dr. Augustine Meier.

The member admitted to failing to maintain professional standards, providing services not likely to benefit a client, and disclosing client information without consent.

Specifically, the member provided custody and access recommendations despite acknowledging a conflict of interest, and disclosed personal health information without consent.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a 12-month coaching program, and $3,500 in costs.

The member, a psychologist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession in preparing an independent medical examination report for a client seeking disability benefits.

The report contained internal inconsistencies, factual errors regarding verifiable biographical and medical data, and was poorly written.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a nine-month restriction on the member performing clinical assessments except under the guidance and support of a peer supervisor, along with $3,500 in costs.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the member for failing to adequately supervise a psychotherapist who provided services to an adolescent, an area outside the member's authorized practice.

The member admitted to the allegations, including inadequate supervision records and billing irregularities.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a 12-month supervised coaching program and $3,500 in costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to each of the three responding parties, for a total of $9,000.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a psychologist for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former client within two years of terminating the therapeutic relationship.

The member admitted to the allegations and the parties submitted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, a 12-month suspension (with 4 months suspended upon completion of remedial courses), and $2,000 in costs.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging the defendants conspired to acquire a property by fraud.

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The plaintiff argued its interest in the property, registered under the Personal Property Security Act, had priority over a subsequent mortgage registered under the Land Titles Act, and that the mortgage was void under the Planning Act for failing to include abutting lands.

The court found that PPSA registration does not provide notice to a subsequent mortgagee of real property, and the plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the abutting lands.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the moving defendants.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the respondent for providing psychological services to a friend and referring him to a contract employee for an assessment.

The respondent admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent guilty of practicing in a conflict of interest and failing to maintain professional standards.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and a one-month suspension, which was suspended on the condition that the respondent complete ethics courses.

A psychologist admitted to professional misconduct for failing to report allegations of child abuse to the Children's Aid Society over a seven-year period, contrary to section 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Discipline Committee accepted the admission and a joint submission on penalty including a reprimand and remedial coursework.

A majority of the panel ordered a two-month suspension of his certificate of registration, emphasizing the seriousness of the failure to report and the need for general deterrence.

A minority would have imposed a one-month suspension, remitted upon completion of the remedial requirements.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario alleged that the member committed professional misconduct by engaging in a personal, romantic, and sexual relationship with a client who was receiving neurofeedback services at her clinic.

Although the services were administered by a technician, they were billed as psychological services under the member's supervision.

The member admitted to the allegations of practicing in a conflict of interest, unprofessional conduct, and failing to maintain professional standards.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and a 12-month suspension, with 5 months suspended upon successful completion of a professional ethics course.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to adequately supervise an unregistered psychotherapist and failing to maintain proper clinical and billing records.

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

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and a 12-month individualized coaching program at the member's expense.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent for failing to adequately supervise a student who conducted a psychological assessment and for failing to maintain records.

The respondent admitted to the allegations, acknowledging that he signed a psychological assessment report without reviewing any underlying documentation and could not produce the client's file.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, finding the respondent guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand and imposed terms and conditions on the respondent's certificate of registration, including a six-month prohibition on supervising others and a subsequent nine-month peer mentorship requirement.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a psychologist for practicing outside her authorized area of school psychology and making custody and access recommendations without the father's consent.

The psychologist admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found her guilty of professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, completion of an ethics course, and a 12-month mentorship.

The applicant, an OPP officer facing workplace misconduct proceedings, brought an application for judicial review seeking to quash or stay the proceedings.

He argued that the disciplinary process under the Police Services Act violated his rights under sections 7 and 11 of the Charter by failing to provide an independent and unbiased tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that section 11 applies only to criminal matters, not employment discipline, and that section 7 is not engaged because there is no constitutional right to practice a profession unfettered by regulatory rules.

The court also declined to order the police association to fund the applicant's legal counsel.

The defendant union brought a motion to bifurcate the trial of three related wrongful dismissal actions, seeking to separate the employment contract issues from the election and membership issues raised by some plaintiffs.

The defendant also sought to have the actions assigned to case management.

The court dismissed the motion for bifurcation, finding that the issues were complex and intertwined, and the defendant failed to demonstrate a clear benefit to severing them.

The court also declined to order case management, as there was no demonstrated need for court intervention at this time.

The actions were ordered to be tried together on consent.

The Toronto Chief of Police issued an order requiring suspended officers to report twice daily at police headquarters.

The Toronto Police Association filed a policy grievance challenging the reasonableness of the order.

The arbitrator concluded the order was not arbitrable as it fell within the Chief's exclusive statutory authority over operational matters.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Board's appeal, agreeing that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Police Services Act and the collective agreement was unreasonable, particularly her failure to apply established jurisprudence regarding the balance between management rights and working conditions.

The respondents, former employees and officers of a union local, brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging unfair labour practices.

They requested the vice-chair recuse himself because he had previously acted for one of the respondents in an employment dispute.

The vice-chair declined and dismissed the application for serving no labour relations purpose.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions, finding a conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court erred by applying the test for a lawyer's conflict of interest rather than the test for reasonable apprehension of bias by an adjudicator.

The Court found the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted and reinstated the vice-chair's decisions.

The appellant brought a motion to vary the order of the motion judge to grant a stay of the Tribunal's decision pending appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge offered no reasons regarding irreparable harm and thus his decision was not entitled to deference.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Court found a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the member had practiced without restriction since 2005.

The motion was granted and a stay was ordered until the appeal hearing date.

The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the placement of a deceased police officer's name on a memorial wall.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the grounds that the estate lacked standing.

The Tribunal held that an estate is not a 'person' capable of experiencing discrimination under the Human Rights Code, particularly where the alleged discrimination occurred after the individual's death.

The application was dismissed for lack of standing.

The Toronto Police Association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that a twice-daily reporting requirement for suspended police officers was outside the scope of arbitral review.

The arbitrator had concluded the requirement was an operational matter within the exclusive authority of the Chief of Police.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, holding that the reporting requirement for suspended officers is a working condition subject to the collective agreement and the supervisory powers of the Police Services Board.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the matter remitted for a decision on the merits.

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing their application.

They argued that the Vice-Chair should have recused himself because he had previously acted as a lawyer for one of the applicants in a related matter.

The Divisional Court found that the Vice-Chair misunderstood the test for conflict of interest and the appearance of bias, as set out in Macdonald Estate v. Martin.

The court quashed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.