Karen Heath

The registrant massage therapist pleaded no contest to allegations of sexually abusing a patient, including touching her genitals, breasts, and buttocks without consent.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the registrant committed professional misconduct, including sexual abuse and physical abuse.

Given the nature of the sexual abuse, the Tribunal imposed the mandatory penalty of revocation of the registrant's certificate of registration and a reprimand, along with orders for costs and reimbursement for patient therapy and counselling.

The College alleged that the registrant engaged in inappropriate and sexual behaviour with a client.

At a case management conference, the registrant requested that hearing dates not be scheduled until the discovery process in a parallel civil action brought by the client was complete.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the Marusic factors.

While there was complete overlap between the proceedings, the Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the passage of time, and the strong public interest in expeditiously resolving sexual abuse proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the registrant to use the Tribunal's third-party records process rather than waiting for civil discovery.

The registrant, a massage therapist, admitted to professional misconduct for inappropriately touching a patient's gluteal and pubic areas without written consent and failing to appropriately address her distress.

The Discipline Tribunal found that he contravened College standards, physically abused the patient, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, remedial coursework, and costs of $5,852.

During a discipline hearing against a pharmacist, the panel lost its last remaining public member, resulting in a loss of quorum under s. 38(5) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The College argued the panel could continue, while the registrant argued quorum was lost but acknowledged the panel's discretion under s. 4.4(2) of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act (SPPA).

The majority of the panel held that while quorum was lost, s. 4.4(2) of the SPPA permitted the remaining members to complete the hearing and render a decision.

The majority found that continuing was the most just, expeditious, and cost-effective approach.

One panel member dissented, concluding that the panel lost jurisdiction to continue once quorum was lost.

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 Discipline Committee determined the penalty and costs for a teacher found guilty of professional misconduct for misusing sick leave.

The member performed at a concert while on sick leave and systematically exhausted his sick time allocations over three academic years.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a 12-month suspension, and coursework on professional ethics.

The Committee also ordered the member to pay $30,000 in costs, finding that his uncooperative and vexatious conduct as a self-represented litigant, including unnecessarily lengthy cross-examinations and repetitive motions, significantly and unjustifiably prolonged the hearing.

In a professional discipline hearing, the College alleged sexual abuse during a massage therapy appointment, asserting that the registrant touched the client’s arms and hands with his erect penis through clothing.

The tribunal applied the balance of probabilities standard requiring clear, cogent and convincing evidence and undertook a detailed credibility and reliability assessment of the client, the registrant, and the surrounding physical and documentary evidence.

The tribunal found the client credible in sincerity but unreliable in her observation, recall, and description of material events, including treatment details and the alleged physical sensations.

The tribunal accepted the registrant’s evidence and the defence urology expert’s opinion that the alleged contact, as described, was physically implausible.

The allegation was not proven and no finding of professional misconduct was made.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that a member misused his allotted sick time over three academic years by using his full allotment and returning to work each June to renew his benefits, and by performing at a concert while on sick leave.

The Discipline Committee found that the member's pattern of absences was a deliberate attempt to renew his sick benefits.

The Committee also found that while the member's activities at the concert did not strictly violate his medical restrictions, his failure to engage in the accommodation process while capable of performing at a concert constituted a misuse of sick time.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

The Appellant appealed the revocation of her licence to operate a retirement home by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to operate the home in a responsible manner, citing numerous deficiencies including improper medication administration, inadequate infection control, and severe neglect of residents' basic hygiene and dignity.

The Tribunal also found the Appellant lacked honesty and integrity, and that her COVID-19 policies and actions were prejudicial to the health and safety of the residents.

The appeal was dismissed, the licence revocation was confirmed, and costs were awarded to the Respondent due to the Appellant's unreasonable conduct during the hearing.

The appellant, Margaret Lee Cole, appealed her conviction for first-degree murder in the death of Richard Humble, who died in a house fire.

The Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's financial motive (forged documents and will), the presence of a sedative (Alprazolam) in the victim's system (prescribed to the appellant), a false alibi, and other suspicious circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in admitting extrinsic misconduct evidence (the "Chapman letters") and in the jury's instruction on its use, as well as in the jury's instruction on the fabricated alibi.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, concluding that the Crown's case was overwhelmingly strong and that the errors did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

The applicants sought to set aside a motion judge's order dismissing their application for leave to appeal under s. 131(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, arguing jurisdictional error.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding it barred by s. 131(3) of the POA, which prohibits appeals or reviews from leave decisions.

The court also found no jurisdictional failure even if the cited precedent applied.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance following a complex multi-party prosecution involving 23 individuals charged on a 65-count information.

The trial took place approximately 41.5 months after the charges were laid.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: first, that the delay breached his Charter rights under s. 11(b) pursuant to the principles established in R. v. Jordan; and second, that evidence obtained from wiretap authorization should have been excluded because the issuing justice for the initial dial number recorder warrants demonstrated reasonable apprehension of bias by providing correspondence to the police officer seeking clarification on the Information to Obtain.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly attributed the delay and that the delay fell below the presumptive ceiling when accounting for discrete exceptional circumstances, complexity, and transitional circumstances.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias, as the issuing justice's correspondence sought appropriate clarification to assess the reliability of information rather than directing the drafting of the warrant application.

The accused, an off-duty police officer, was charged with sexual assault after allegedly brushing his fingers against the complainant's inner thigh in a crowded beer tent.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, as no one witnessed the touching.

The court found that while the touching occurred by the accused's hand, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether it was deliberate or accidental.

Evidence of the accused's significant intoxication, unsteady gait, and uncoordinated movements supported a reasonable inference that the brief touching was accidental.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and related allegations in June 2017, with trial scheduled for March 2019, resulting in a gross delay of 21.5 months.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging the right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.

After deducting 1.5 months of defence delay, the net delay was 19.5 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The court found that systemic disclosure failures, particularly the late disclosure of a key witness's statement on the morning of trial, could not be justified as exceptional circumstances.

The charges were stayed.

The appellant appealed his sentence for aggravated assault and breach of probation.

Following sentencing discussions, counsel had agreed on a sentencing range of 18 to 24 months less pretrial custody credit.

However, due to inadvertence during submissions, the appellant's counsel asked for 15 months in addition to pretrial custody rather than less pretrial custody, resulting in an effective sentence of over 28 months.

The Crown agreed that the sentence should be set aside and that the agreed-upon range was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and imposed a sentence of 18 months less pretrial custody credit (414 days), resulting in a final sentence of four months from the date of sentencing.

The appellant was convicted on 18 counts relating to drug trafficking and firearm possession following an undercover police operation.

He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment (three and one-half years on firearm offences and four years on drug offences, made consecutive and then reduced on a global basis).

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence on three main grounds: alleging a breach of section 8 Charter rights regarding the search warrant, claiming the trial judge's amended reasons constituted after-the-fact justification, and asserting the verdict was unreasonable.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence, arguing the consecutive sentences were inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

The accused pleaded guilty to four serious offences: making child pornography, possessing child pornography, sexual assault, and counselling a person under 16 to touch her with an object.

The offences involved her very young son and were discovered through international cooperation between American and Canadian authorities.

The Crown sought a long-term offender designation and a sentence of six to eight years.

The defence sought a five-year sentence with no long-term offender order.

The court imposed a six-year sentence (apportioned as 3.5 years for sexual assault concurrent with 3.5 years for invitation to sexual touching, 2.5 years consecutive for making child pornography, and 2 years concurrent for possession of child pornography) and declined to impose a long-term offender designation, finding the accused posed a low risk of reoffending based on psychiatric evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, as well as his sentence.

The offences occurred at a detention centre where the appellant and three co-accused attacked a fellow inmate in his cell.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by drawing inferences to fill evidentiary gaps regarding what occurred inside the cell where there was no video surveillance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for aggravated assault but set aside the convictions for assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace on the basis of the Kienapple principle.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in law by bifurcating the sentence, ordering part of it to be served concurrently and part consecutively.

The sentence was varied to two and one-half years to be served consecutively to the appellant's existing sentences.

This appeal addressed whether informer privilege can protect an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip made to obstruct a police investigation.

The Court held privilege does not apply where, on a balance of probabilities, the caller intended to further criminal activity or interfere with the administration of justice.

It confirmed judges should presume privilege exists and determine applicability through in camera proceedings, often ex parte, with fairness safeguards for the defence.

The Court also confirmed judges may review the tip record and may require a preliminary exclusion or probity showing before full litigation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted robbery and his 20-month sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to adequately account for the frailty of Crown witness evidence and applied more rigorous scrutiny to the appellant's evidence than to Crown witnesses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly assessed the credibility of the accomplice and victim witnesses and did not reverse the onus of proof.

On sentencing, the Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding trial counsel's suspension, the co-accused's role in adjournments, and the appellant's bail variation application.

The Court also considered the appellant's extraordinary rehabilitation efforts since sentencing.

The sentence was varied to time served.