Anastasia-Maria Hountalas

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent's Complaints Committee not to refer his complaint against a member to the Discipline Committee.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering dismissal of the application.

The court found that the applicant, as a complainant in a professional discipline matter, lacked standing to challenge the substantive reasonableness of the decision.

The application was dismissed.

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.

The College alleged that the Member participated in a fraudulent billing scheme where her clinics submitted over 130 false or partially false insurance claims to Sun Life using the credentials of a registered massage therapist without her knowledge.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member, as the clinic owner and a regulated professional, was responsible for the billing practices and had exclusive access to the bank accounts receiving the funds.

The Committee concluded that the College proved all allegations of professional misconduct, including failing to maintain standards of practice, submitting false accounts, falsifying records, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

On a penalty and costs hearing following findings of professional misconduct arising from treatment of a sensitive area without the required consent and explanation, the Tribunal imposed a reprimand, a seven-month suspension, and remedial educational terms.

The panel treated prior discipline history involving boundaries and non-compliance with an earlier order as aggravating.

A majority also ordered tariff-based costs without reduction, holding that the unproven billing allegation did not consume sufficiently significant hearing time to justify a divided-success adjustment.

A dissenting panel member would have reduced costs by 25% to reflect partial failure on one allegation.

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.

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.

In a penalty decision following findings of sexual and physical abuse of a client, the Tribunal imposed a reprimand and an eight-month suspension, to commence if the registrant is ever reinstated.

The Tribunal treated the misconduct as an egregious boundary violation involving progressively intrusive touching, exposure of the client's genitals, and abuse of the therapist-client power imbalance.

A prior discipline history, including a similar sexual abuse finding, was a significant aggravating factor, and no mitigating factors were before the panel because the registrant did not attend.

The Tribunal also ordered costs of $11,704 and maintained a publication restriction protecting the client's identity.

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.

In a professional discipline matter, the registrant admitted misconduct arising from treatment of sensitive areas without the required written and verbal consent, failure to stop immediately when requested, and inadequate draping.

The tribunal applied the public-interest test governing joint submissions and held the proposed six-month suspension, reprimand, remedial coursework, and standards review were not contrary to the public interest.

The tribunal emphasized the seriousness of boundary-protecting consent and draping standards, while noting the absence of prior discipline and the support of analogous disciplinary authorities.

The joint submission was accepted and costs of $5,852 were ordered.

In a professional discipline hearing, the tribunal found that a registrant sexually abused a client during a single massage therapy appointment at a home-based clinic.

Applying the objective test for conduct of a sexual nature, the tribunal accepted the client’s evidence over the registrant’s and found inappropriate remarks, instructions to fully undress, inadequate draping exposing sensitive areas, non-consensual inner-thigh treatment, breast touching, and the registrant climbing onto the massage table between the client’s legs.

The tribunal also found contraventions of published standards, physical abuse, and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

Because the proven conduct included sexual touching of the client’s breasts, the tribunal ordered the registrant’s certificate of registration suspended immediately and directed that penalty and costs be scheduled.

In a professional discipline prosecution, the tribunal found that the registrant sexually and physically abused a client during a massage therapy session.

Applying the civil standard of proof and credibility principles, the tribunal accepted the client’s evidence that the registrant treated sensitive areas without written consent, used insecure draping that exposed the client’s genital area, and repeatedly touched the client’s head with his groin.

The tribunal held this conduct breached the profession’s boundaries standard, constituted sexual abuse under the Health Professions Procedural Code, violated the client’s bodily integrity, and amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

The allegation of breach of the client health record standard was not made out because consent to therapeutic massage treatment had been recorded.

The applicant, an Ontario resident seeking to qualify as a lawyer in Manitoba, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education (CPLED) dismissing his appeal after he failed the bar admission course.

The respondent brought a motion to determine whether Ontario had jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to judicially review a decision made under the legislation of another province by an extra-provincial body.

Applying the real and substantial connection test, the court found that the applicant's mere residence in Ontario was insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and dismissed the application.

The Member was found guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing two patients during acupuncture treatment sessions.

The Member had previously pled guilty to criminal charges of sexual assault for the same conduct and received a 12-month conditional sentence.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Member's admissions and the College's evidence, finding the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, reimbursement of up to $34,740 for patient therapy and counselling, and $34,605.56 in costs.

The College brought professional misconduct allegations against the member.

The member did not attend the hearing but had resigned her certificate of registration and provided a written undertaking never to reapply.

The College agreed that, given the resignation and undertaking, it was not contrary to the public interest to adjourn the hearing indefinitely, reserving the right to continue proceedings if the member ever reapplied.

The Discipline Committee adjourned the allegations indefinitely, noting that costs could not be awarded without a finding of professional misconduct.

Dr. Covant, a veterinarian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a finding of professional misconduct by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario's Discipline Committee.

The misconduct stemmed from re-selling large quantities of veterinary drugs to human pharmacies, which violated an amended regulation (s. 33(2)(d) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093) restricting such sales to "reasonably limited quantities" for "temporary shortages." Covant argued the regulation was unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad, the misconduct finding was erroneous, and the imposed penalty was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming that the regulation was not impermissibly vague or overbroad, the professional misconduct was properly established given Covant's ongoing sub-distribution enterprise, and the one-month suspension and costs award were fit and reasonable.

The applicant, an unlicensed cemetery owner, sought judicial review of an order by the Registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario directing it not to interfere with the interment of a deceased individual.

The applicant argued the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine interment rights and denied it procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar had the statutory authority to ensure orderly burials and incidentally determine interment rights based on reasonable evidence, without breaching procedural fairness.

The Discipline Committee determined the penalty for a member found to have committed professional misconduct by advising a patient to stop thyroid medication and falsely claiming acupuncture could regrow the thyroid gland, leading to the patient's hospitalization.

The College sought revocation, arguing the member was ungovernable due to his failure to participate in the hearing and his relocation to Korea.

The Committee found the member was not ungovernable, noting his prior expressions of remorse and lack of discipline history.

The Committee ordered a 12-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial terms including the PROBE program, and costs of $29,818.45.

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 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 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.