Brianne Westland

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct involving non-consensual sexual touching and inappropriate messages directed at students and a junior employee.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought revocation while the Member sought a 3-4 month suspension.

The Discipline Committee imposed a 6-month suspension, a reprimand, and mandatory ethics courses, noting the serious nature of the boundary violations and exploitation of power imbalances, balanced against the Member's lack of prior discipline history.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $50,000 in costs.

The College alleged that the Member, an instructor at a traditional Chinese medicine school, committed professional misconduct involving three complainants.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member touched Complainant C's buttocks without consent, sent inappropriate and sexually suggestive messages to Complainant A (a former and current student), and touched Complainant B's buttocks without consent during a class demonstration.

The Committee rejected the Member's denials and his theory that the complaints were fabricated due to the influence of another student.

The Committee concluded that the Member's actions constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct, as well as conduct unbecoming a practitioner.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

In a Commercial List dispute arising from a light rail transit project, the applicants sought declaratory relief alleging that the respondents breached a project agreement by entering into an operator agreement with the transit operator on terms inconsistent with the project agreement.

The respondents moved to stay the application based on release and arbitration provisions in earlier Minutes of Settlement, while the applicants moved for production of an unredacted copy of the operator agreement.

Applying the stay framework from Peace River, the court held the respondents failed to show even an arguable case that the dispute was caught by the settlement arbitration clause, because the alleged actionable wrong did not arise until the operator agreement was executed after the settlement effective date.

The court also ordered production of the complete unredacted agreement, finding it central to the issues and that the respondents had adduced no evidence capable of justifying redactions for confidentiality or commercial sensitivity.

Costs of $90,000 partial indemnity were awarded to the applicants.

The College sought to withdraw the allegations contained in a Notice of Hearing against the member because the member had passed away.

The Discipline Committee granted the withdrawal, noting that it was not in the public interest to require a hearing given the member's death.

The member admitted to engaging in professional misconduct by practising acupuncture and holding herself out as a registered member while her certificate of registration was suspended.

She also admitted to obstructing a College investigator and failing to cooperate with the investigation.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the immediate revocation of her certificate of registration, a reprimand, and $4,000 in costs, with an extended 90-day period to pay due to financial difficulties.

The responding parties brought an application seeking declaratory relief regarding the moving parties' alleged failure to retain an operator for a light rail transit project.

The moving parties brought a motion to stay the application in favour of arbitration, relying on a dispute resolution clause in prior Minutes of Settlement.

The court granted the stay, applying the competence-competence principle and finding that the moving parties established an arguable case that the dispute fell within the arbitration agreement.

The court also found no undue delay by the moving parties in seeking the stay.

The College sought to withdraw the allegations in the Notice of Hearing against the respondent.

The respondent had previously executed an undertaking to surrender his certificate of registration and never reapply.

The Discipline Committee permitted the withdrawal, finding that a full hearing was not in the public interest given the respondent's undertaking and the disposal of a prior Notice of Hearing.

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 a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee requiring her to attend in person to be cautioned regarding unprofessional communications.

The applicant had made inappropriate comments in the workplace while experiencing emotional distress related to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the caution was a remedial measure within the Committee's jurisdiction and was reasonable given the professional standards expected of physicians.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the decision violated her equality rights under the Charter, as she failed to establish that the caution had an adverse impact on her or on people with mental health disabilities generally.

The defendants sought a reconsideration of a costs decision following a class action certification motion, arguing for no costs due to divided success because only one of the plaintiffs' two distinct cases was certified.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the joinder of claims was proper under the Rules of Civil Procedure and consistent with the principle of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The original costs award of $150,000 to the plaintiffs was confirmed.

Following the successful certification of a class proceeding, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The parties agreed that $150,000, all inclusive, was a fair and reasonable amount for the certification motion, which included $5,000 for a motion to strike an affidavit.

The defendants did not deliver any costs submissions opposing the request.

The court found the agreed amount to be fair and reasonable and awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against a plastic surgeon and his clinic for breach of privacy.

The claims involved two main grievances: the surreptitious video surveillance of patients in the clinic (the Surveillance Complaint) and the posting of patient images on social media without valid consent (the Social Media Complaint).

The court certified the Surveillance Complaint, finding it met all criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court declined to certify the Social Media Complaint, concluding that the issue of valid consent was highly idiosyncratic and required individual inquiries, meaning it failed the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of certification.

The court granted the motion, striking evidence that was irrelevant, prejudicial, or detailed a College of Physicians and Surgeons investigation contrary to section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike the expert report of Dr. Mary Anne Franks, proffered by the plaintiffs for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images online without consent.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that Dr. Franks' evidence regarding the social and cultural context of non-consensual image distribution and American law was not relevant or helpful to determining the common issues for certification.

In a proposed class action against a plastic surgeon for breach of privacy involving surreptitious video recording and unauthorized social media postings, the plaintiffs brought a preliminary motion for leave to deliver a supplementary affidavit regarding class size after cross-examinations had concluded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had provided their best information based on the plaintiffs' class definition, the supplementary evidence did not respond to matters raised on cross-examination, and allowing the affidavit would amount to prejudicial case-splitting.

The plaintiffs in a proposed privacy class action brought a preliminary motion to strike the complete clinical medical charts and medical records of the plaintiffs and two deponents, which were included in the responding affidavits of the defendant doctor.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images on social media without consent.

The court granted the motion, finding that the detailed medical records were irrelevant and inadmissible for the purposes of the certification motion, as the action concerned privacy breaches rather than medical malpractice.