Jacinthe Boudreau

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to providing inappropriate incentives (shoe credits) to patients for purchasing orthotics, submitting misleading insurance claims, and failing to maintain adequate patient records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, an 8-month suspension (with 2 months remitted upon completing ethics and records courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and $9,000 in costs.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to providing inappropriate incentives (shoe credits) to patients for purchasing orthotics, submitting misleading insurance claims, and failing to maintain adequate patient records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, an 8-month suspension (with 2 months remitted upon completing ethics and records courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and $9,000 in costs.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on place of origin, disability, family status, age, and reprisal against the employer and the union.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged denial of vacation or the union's handling of the grievance to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal regarding delays in processing the claimant's pension, which were attributed to clerical errors.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, place of origin, and other grounds, as well as reprisal by both the employer and the union.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters were dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees (EIBR) and the union grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the EIBR had appropriately dealt with the allegations that the termination was discriminatory, as it found the applicant lacked just cause to decline reinstatement and was not subjected to human rights violations.

However, the EIBR did not deal with allegations regarding vacation scheduling.

The Tribunal also found that the withdrawn union grievance was not a proceeding under section 45.1.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination allegations against the employer but allowed the vacation scheduling and union allegations to continue, and granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add reprisal allegations.