Ian 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 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, family members of individuals whose deaths were investigated by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), sought a declaration that police officers involved in SIU investigations are not entitled to legal assistance in preparing their notes.

The application judge dismissed the application on grounds of standing, justiciability, and mootness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the applicants had public interest standing and the issues were justiciable and not moot.

Exercising its jurisdiction to decide the substantive issues, the Court held that the Police Services Act and the SIU Regulation do not permit police officers to have a lawyer vet or assist in the preparation of their notes, though they may obtain basic legal advice regarding their rights and duties provided it does not delay note completion.

The respondents moved to strike or quash portions of the appellants' Notice of Appeal, specifically a request for a declaration and a ground of appeal relating to justiciability and standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, deferring the jurisdictional issue to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellants' cross-motion to have the appeal case-managed was granted, with costs of the motion awarded to the appellants.

The appellant appealed a $100 costs order made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario for late notification of a settlement.

The Divisional Court found the costs award unreasonable because the Committee made a factual error regarding disclosure, failed to consider the College's shared responsibility for the delay, and provided no reasons for departing from the parties' joint submission that no costs should be awarded.

The appeal was allowed and the costs order was set aside.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of discreditable conduct.

The charges arose from criminal proceedings involving an assault on a fellow officer with whom he had a domestic relationship, and two subsequent breaches of a recognizance.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant penalty factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for threatening, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable and within the Hearing Officer's discretion.

Seneca College brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order dismissing its application to dismiss the union's judicial review for undue delay.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge did not err in exercising his discretion to allow the judicial review to proceed despite a 19-month delay, as there was no actual prejudice to the college.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent college brought a motion to dismiss the union's application for judicial review on the grounds of undue delay.

The union had delayed perfecting the application for approximately nineteen months, citing difficulties assembling the record, a strike, and counsel workload.

The court applied the three-part test for undue delay, considering the length of delay, the explanation, and prejudice.

Although the delay was substantial and the explanation regarding counsel workload was generally insufficient, the court dismissed the motion because there was no actual prejudice to the college and no ongoing turmoil in the workplace.