Carol Street

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their second-year warranty claims for disintegrating front precast steps and water penetration in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal admitted the evidence of Tarion's warranty services representative as a participant expert.

The Tribunal found that the damage to the steps was caused by the appellants' use of salt or de-icer, which is excluded from warranty coverage as improper maintenance.

The Tribunal also held that the water penetration claim was statute-barred because it was not raised within the two-year warranty period.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found the water penetration was caused by ice damming rather than a warrantable construction defect.

The appeal was dismissed.

The added party builder brought a motion to have the upcoming appeal hearing proceed in person and to limit the scope of the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the request for an in-person hearing due to the ongoing pandemic, ordering that the hearing proceed by videoconference.

The Tribunal granted the request to limit the scope of the hearing to the issues of the precast front porch steps and rainwater penetration, as other issues had been previously adjudicated.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claim for alleged structural defects in their new home.

At the hearing, the self-represented appellant brought a motion for the adjudicator to recuse herself, alleging bias, which was dismissed for lack of evidence.

On the merits, the appellants failed to provide any evidence to support their claims of structural defects.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of a structural engineer retained by Tarion, who confirmed the home was built in accordance with the Ontario Building Code and that all issues had been remediated.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for allowing unauthorized individuals into the nursing station to discuss her personal business while on duty, creating a risk of a privacy breach.

She was also alleged to have used names other than her registered name in professional contexts, causing confusion to the public.

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 three-month suspension, and various terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to add the builder, Remington Oakville Preserve Inc., as a party to the homeowner's appeal of a denied warranty claim.

The homeowner brought a cross-motion to exclude the builder's late-filed submissions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the homeowner's motion, finding no prejudice from the late filing.

The Tribunal granted Tarion's motion to add the builder as a party, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding because the alleged framing defects could expose the builder to significant financial loss and the issues overlapped with a prior proceeding involving the same parties.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by engaging in a sexual relationship, including sexual intercourse, with a vulnerable client while working at a hospital.

The Member also attempted to coerce the client into taking the blame for the incident.

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

The Member's certificate of registration was immediately revoked, and she was ordered to appear for an oral reprimand.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee dismissing allegations of patient abuse against a registered nurse.

The allegations involved the nurse allegedly slapping a psychiatric patient across the face.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the allegations after finding the evidence of the two complaining nurses to be inconsistent and not credible, while finding the respondent nurse's denials to be plausible.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's decision, finding that the credibility assessments and factual findings were defensible and supported by the evidence.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying 68 claims for alleged construction defects in their new home.

During the hearing, 16 claims were withdrawn.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the remaining claims, which included issues with insulation, drywall, flooring, bathroom finishes, roofing, and exterior masonry.

The Tribunal found that the vast majority of the claims did not constitute breaches of warranty, as the construction met the Ontario Building Code and Tarion's Construction Performance Guidelines.

However, the Tribunal found breaches of warranty regarding the master ensuite shower floor grout and the exterior foundation brushcoating.

Tarion was directed to repair the grout and pay the appellants $565 for the brushcoating defects.

All other claims were denied.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that largely dismissed his claim for compensation regarding alleged defects in a new home.

The appellant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing additional evidence and made errors of fact by omitting certain witness testimony from its reasons.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicator had admitted all non-duplicative evidence and that the Tribunal's reasons were not required to exhaustively recount all witness testimony.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct for failing to report the abuse of a client.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought a two-month suspension, while the Member argued for a six-week suspension.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration, including mandatory meetings with a Nursing Expert and employer notification.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying 15 claims for alleged defects in his new home.

The claims included allegations of water penetration, defective doors, missing sod, and a substitution of 2x4 framing instead of 2x6 framing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no breach of warranty for 14 of the items, noting a lack of evidence of defects or damages.

The Tribunal found a breach of warranty regarding defective caulking in the master bathroom shower and ordered Tarion to pay $75 for the repair.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to report an incident where she observed a colleague strike a psychiatric client and place him in a headlock.

The Member denied seeing the abuse, claiming she was focused on securing the client's ankles during the restraint.

Relying on video surveillance footage and witness testimony, the Discipline Committee found that the Member had ample opportunity to observe the abuse and did in fact see it.

The Committee rejected the defence expert's theory of unintentional blindness.

The Member was found to have breached the standards of practice and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct by failing to report the incident.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to disclose to his employer that he had previously paid a client for sexual services, and for subsequently providing nursing care to that client while she was incarcerated.

The Member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging that his actions constituted a conflict of interest and a breach of professional boundaries.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, characterizing his conduct as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and the imposition of terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for using excessive force to restrain a mental health client who was attempting to leave a secure unit.

The Member admitted to pulling the client to the floor and striking him four or five times in the head, neck, and shoulder area.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found that the Member's actions constituted professional misconduct, specifically physical and emotional abuse, and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct, including holding herself out as a physician and a nurse practitioner, recommending alternative cancer treatments, breaching professional boundaries, and accessing medical records without authorization.

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

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

In light of the Member's undertaking to permanently resign from the College and never reapply, the Committee accepted a joint submission and ordered a reprimand.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim ruling by the Discipline Committee of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, which had deferred a decision on a motion to dismiss charges until the end of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court emphasized its reluctance to fragment administrative proceedings and noted that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to control its own process and defer its decision until a full evidentiary record was available.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for harassing three co-workers, including inappropriate comments and physical touching without consent.

Following an agreed statement of facts, the Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct by engaging in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member, a registered nurse, committed professional misconduct by slapping a psychiatric patient across the face twice.

The allegations relied primarily on the testimony of two other nurses and the patient.

The Discipline Committee assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in the testimony of the College's witnesses, particularly regarding their failure to immediately report the alleged abuse.

The Committee found the Member's denial plausible and concluded that the College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The allegations were dismissed.

The member was found to have committed professional misconduct relating to the emotional and physical abuse of a vulnerable client.

Following the findings, the College and the member presented a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a three-month suspension of the member's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, and terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The panel found the penalty addressed specific and general deterrence, remediation, and public protection, and fell within the range of reasonable outcomes for similar misconduct.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member, acting as a charge nurse, committed professional misconduct by failing to properly investigate and report a client's allegation of sexual abuse against another nurse.

The client had complained to a bedside nurse about the care provided by a male nurse during a catheterization.

The bedside nurse reported the complaint to the Member as an issue of nursing care and client discomfort with a male nurse, without mentioning 'inappropriate touching'.

The Member relied on the bedside nurse's assessment and ensured the male nurse was reassigned.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member acted reasonably based on the information provided to her and dismissed all allegations of professional misconduct, breach of standards, and failure to report.