Carina Lentsch

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted issuing or permitting false receipts for treatments not provided to two clients and failing to maintain treatment records for multiple appointments for a third client.

The Tribunal held that the admitted conduct constituted professional misconduct under several paragraphs of s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94, including false or misleading documentation, record-keeping failures, and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

Applying the joint-submission standard, the panel accepted the jointly proposed penalty as consistent with the public interest and proportionate, particularly given the registrant's prior discipline for similar misconduct.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, a six-month suspension, remedial educational terms, compliance audits, and costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted misconduct arising from assessment of a client's gluteal muscles without prior written informed consent during a massage therapy appointment.

The Tribunal held that the admitted conduct breached consent, sexual abuse prevention, and professional boundaries standards, and constituted professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94.

Applying the Anthony-Cook public-interest threshold for joint submissions, the Tribunal accepted the jointly proposed penalty because it was within the range for similar cases and was not contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal imposed a one-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial terms, and costs of $5,852 payable by installments.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse who falsified her resume to indicate she had 14 months of emergency department experience.

The nurse used the falsified resume to obtain a contract position in a remote hospital's emergency department, where staff quickly identified her lack of necessary skills.

The Discipline Committee found the nurse committed professional misconduct by issuing a false document and engaging in dishonourable conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a one-month suspension, an oral reprimand, remedial meetings with a regulatory expert, and a 12-month employer notification requirement.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally, physically, and emotionally abusing a highly vulnerable, non-verbal, and blind patient during a COVID-19 outbreak.

The Member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging she used inappropriate language, forcefully handled the patient, and breached the College's standards of practice.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

In a professional discipline penalty decision, the tribunal addressed misconduct arising solely from the registrant’s failure to retain a client health record for the required period.

After earlier dismissing sexual abuse, physical abuse, and standards allegations, the tribunal accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand and, if the registrant returns to practice, a requirement to complete the College’s record-keeping e-workshop.

The tribunal held the proposed sanction met public protection, deterrence, remediation, and public interest objectives.

No costs were ordered, given the admission on the record-keeping issue and the dismissal of the more serious allegations that consumed most of the hearing.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for accessing the electronic medical records of approximately 166 patients without consent, authorization, or clinical purpose.

The matter proceeded on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the nurse committed professional misconduct by breaching the College's standards of practice and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension of the nurse's certificate of registration, and remedial conditions including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for arranging to receive a fake COVID-19 vaccine and asking a colleague to pretend to administer a second dose to circumvent her employer's mandatory vaccination policy.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts in which the member admitted to the conduct, which breached the College's Code of Conduct, Professional Standards, and Ethics Standard.

The Committee found the member committed professional misconduct and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

A Joint Submission on Order was accepted, resulting in a reprimand, a 3-month suspension, and conditions on her certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct including sexual abuse and boundary violations regarding a former patient within one year of his discharge from a withdrawal management program.

The Member admitted to the allegations, which involved sending sexually explicit text messages, providing gifts and money, and consuming alcohol with the former patient.

Proceeding by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Order, the Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Given the Member's undertaking to permanently resign from the College, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to improper technique and failing to maintain professional boundaries during catheterization procedures.

The Member admitted to asking a patient if she could feel anything without clinical purpose, addressing her as 'my lady', and touching her thigh, which caused the patient to feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

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

A Joint Submission on Order was accepted, resulting in a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a Registered Practical Nurse for engaging in a sexual and personal relationship with a patient, providing the patient with money, and failing to report a colleague's sexual relationship with another patient.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the nurse committed professional misconduct, including sexual and emotional abuse.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, reimbursement of up to $5,000 for patient therapy, and the immediate revocation of the nurse's certificate of registration.

The member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims to her employer's benefit plan and receiving store credits for non-medical items.

The Discipline Committee found that the member contravened standards of practice, misappropriated property, falsified records, and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, noting that the member had already provided an undertaking to permanently resign from the College.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims under her employer's benefit plan between 2010 and 2015, receiving approximately $17,654.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including misappropriating property, falsifying records, and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a four-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and the imposition of terms, conditions, and limitations, including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct including leaving a long-term care facility during a night shift without arranging alternative care, making medication documentation errors, and failing to document a physician's order and a conversation with a substitute decision-maker.

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 penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms and conditions on the member's certificate of registration.

The self-represented plaintiffs brought three separate actions against two hospitals, seven physicians, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, alleging medical malpractice, falsification of records, breach of privacy, and improper regulatory investigations relating to psychiatric treatment provided between 2004 and 2012.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment and motions to strike the claims.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motions and dismissed all three actions.

The court found that the claims against the hospitals and physicians were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs had discovered the claims years before commencing the actions.

The court also held that the hospitals were not vicariously liable for the actions of independent physicians.

The claims against the College were struck because the College owes no private law duty of care to complainants, and the actions constituted an abuse of process by attempting a collateral attack on the statutory complaints and review process.

The plaintiff brought a dental malpractice action against the defendants for defective implant surgery and dentures.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court applied the subjective and modified objective tests for discoverability and found that the plaintiff did not discover that a legal proceeding would be an appropriate remedy until the defendants refused to repair his dentures at no cost.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, alleging discrimination and reprisal on various grounds.

The allegations primarily related to child protection proceedings, medical treatment, and benefit entitlements spanning several years.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the allegations either had no reasonable prospect of success, fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, or had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The applicant, an elderly woman, alleged that an investigator for the College of Physicians and Surgeons discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to allow her to file a complaint against a doctor.

The investigator had sought consent for the release of medical records from the applicant's daughter, acting as substitute decision-maker, because the applicant was unresponsive.

The Tribunal found that the investigator did not refuse to accept a complaint from the applicant because of her disability, but rather reasonably understood that the daughter was the complainant and required consent to access medical information.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her nine applications on the basis of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the HRTO failed to include all respondents she complained against.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to address why the HRTO's decisions were unreasonable and noting the HRTO correctly identified the named respondents.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), and the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The allegations stemmed from the handling of complaints against doctors, the joinder of complaints, and the disclosure of personal information.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed almost all allegations, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success, were barred by judicial immunity, or were inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Tribunal deferred dismissing one allegation regarding the College's alleged refusal to allow a complaint due to disability, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.

A former director and investor brought a motion for summary judgment alleging negligent misrepresentation by corporate directors, the chief financial officer, and an engineering consultant arising from a private placement investment that later became worthless after the corporation entered receivership.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentations concerning reserve reports, a bank borrowing base notice, and the intended use of proceeds of the financing.

The court held that many alleged representations were made to the plaintiff in his capacity as a director rather than as an investor, raising significant duty of care issues and rendering reliance problematic.

The court also found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether misrepresentations occurred, whether they were negligent, and whether reliance was established.

In addition, most claims were found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.