Rebecca Young

The Registrant, a dentist, admitted to multiple allegations of professional misconduct, including submitting false or misleading insurance claims, charging excessive fees, failing to maintain standards of practice by providing aggressive periodontal surgery without adequate investigation, failing to keep proper records, and failing to respond appropriately to College inquiries.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Registrant's certificate of registration was suspended for six months, and he was ordered to complete remedial courses, undergo clinical supervision and practice monitoring, receive a reprimand, and pay $10,000 in costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for blurring professional boundaries by providing personal emotional support to a friend, falsifying a record by writing a letter claiming to be the friend's treating psychotherapist, and threatening the friend and his spouse after learning they had complained to the College.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-month suspension, a reprimand, individualized ethics instruction, counselling, supervision, and costs of $4,700, finding the penalty protected the public and did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of sexually abusing a patient who was also his coworker.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in finding the coworker was a 'patient' under the Patient Criteria Regulation, asserting that dispensing a prescription did not constitute a 'direct interaction'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the determination of whether a patient relationship existed was a question of mixed fact and law subject to deference.

The Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's conclusion that dispensing a prescription and conducting a clinical verification constituted a direct interaction creating a pharmacist-patient relationship.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found misconduct where the registrant provided therapeutic services to two clients with whom she was in dual relationships, creating a conflict of interest, and failed to obtain valid prior informed written consents to treatment.

The misconduct was aggravated by the registrant's subsequent romantic relationship with one client's former spouse and by her use of documents purporting to characterize the services as not being active therapy despite invoicing for therapeutic treatment.

Applying the Anthony-Cook public-interest threshold for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed penalty as proportionate and consistent with public protection, deterrence, and remediation.

The panel imposed a five-month suspension, a reprimand, an ethics and boundaries course, and costs.

The Tribunal found professional misconduct where the registrant treated a client's buttocks without written informed consent, failed to maintain required health and financial records, and communicated with the client through multiple media at inappropriate late-night and early-morning hours over several months.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint penalty submissions, the Tribunal accepted a joint proposal because it was not unhinged from the circumstances and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Tribunal emphasized client autonomy, record-keeping obligations, and the management of professional boundaries in therapeutic relationships.

A reprimand, four-month suspension, remedial educational terms, chart audits, and costs were ordered.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for professional misconduct while employed at a youth detention centre.

The nurse admitted to engaging in a personal relationship with a youth patient, failing to report the patient's possession of a contraband cell phone, and bringing contraband items including cannabis and e-cigarettes into the facility for the patient.

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

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

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for accessing the electronic medical records of 16 patients without consent, authorization, or professional purpose.

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

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct, as her actions breached the College's Code of Conduct, Professional Standards, and Privacy Standard.

The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a two-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and terms including 12 months of employer notification and random spot audits.

Discipline proceeding arising from prolonged boundary violations by a social worker with a vulnerable client in a housing support setting.

The registrant admitted exchanging highly personal text messages, attending the client’s apartment to socialize, giving money and cannabis, accepting favours, failing to address romantic overtures appropriately, practising in a conflict of interest, and failing to document the full extent of the interactions.

The Panel found professional misconduct proved on a balance of probabilities and granted a publication ban protecting the client’s identity.

The Panel accepted an amended joint submission on penalty, imposed a written reprimand, a suspended five-month suspension triggered on any future re-registration, remediation and supervision conditions, publication of the order, and $5,000 in costs.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for submitting false claims totaling $4,030 to her employer's group benefit plan.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts, acknowledging she received non-medical products instead of the claimed medical services.

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

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee imposed a penalty consisting of an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension of her certificate of registration, and conditions requiring meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims totaling approximately $41,859 to her employer's benefit plan between 2011 and 2017.

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

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension, terms and conditions including meetings with a regulatory expert, and a $1,500 fine.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for participating in a benefits fraud scheme at her workplace.

Between August and October 2012, she submitted false claims totaling $5,070 under the employer's benefit plan and split the proceeds with a service provider employee.

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

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing an oral reprimand, a 4-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration, including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting 485 false claims under his employer's benefit plan, receiving $34,667.45 for services not rendered.

When investigated, the Member forged receipts to substantiate the false claims.

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

The Member was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was suspended for 5 months, and terms, conditions, and limitations were imposed on his certificate.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists, which denied his request to stay a discipline hearing pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground of prematurity.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify reviewing the interlocutory decision before the administrative proceedings had run their full course, noting that the applicant's concerns about revealing his criminal defence strategy were generic and did not constitute irreparable harm.

The Member, a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner, admitted to professional misconduct for issuing false diplomas and transcripts to over 80 individuals through his academy, obstructing a College investigation, and submitting false transcripts for his own registration.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Member was reprimanded, suspended for 24 months, permanently restricted from teaching or operating an academic institution related to the profession, ordered to complete an ethics course, and required to pay costs of $120,000 (reducible to $42,500 if paid early).

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to complete a remediation program and failing to appear for an oral caution ordered by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for professional misconduct.

The member admitted to failing to assess a patient's vital signs and blood glucose levels, failing to respond to changes in the patient's condition, failing to transfer the patient to the hospital, and failing to accurately report the patient's condition to her family.

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

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

The member optometrist pled guilty to professional misconduct for improperly delegating controlled acts (communicating a diagnosis and prescribing eyeglasses) to an optician, failing to maintain proper patient records, and allowing false claims to be submitted to an insurer.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The member was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was suspended for three weeks, and he was ordered to complete a professional ethics course, write an essay, undergo a practice inspection, and pay $20,000 in costs.

The appellant, who held a power of attorney for an elderly resident in a long-term care facility, misappropriated over $378,000 of the resident's assets and defrauded Veterans Affairs Canada.

He was convicted of theft and fraud, and sentenced to two years less a day in jail, restitution, and a lifetime prohibition order under s. 380.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, the jail sentence, and the restitution orders.

However, the Court struck the s. 380.2(1) prohibition order, finding that it constituted punishment and therefore the presumption against retrospectivity applied, meaning it could not be imposed for an offence committed before the section was enacted.