Shaun O’Brien

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for stealing over 300 client labels containing personal health information from two hospitals and providing them to a third party for monetary reward.

The Member pled guilty to criminal charges of secret commissions and received a conditional sentence.

In the discipline proceeding, the Member admitted the allegations and entered into an undertaking to permanently resign from the College.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission and ordered the Member to appear for an oral reprimand.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim suspension order imposed by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee following allegations of sexual abuse and subsequent breaches of a prior monitoring order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procedural fairness complaints were premature and should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also rejected the applicant's statutory interpretation argument that the entire 58-member committee was required to issue the order, and concluded that the suspension was reasonable given the applicant's demonstrated inability to comply with the monitoring order.

The applicant, a registered nurse, was found unconscious at work after using narcotics misappropriated from the hospital.

He admitted to a drug addiction.

The College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordered him to undergo an independent medical examination.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that a report from his treating addiction specialist was sufficient and that the order violated his Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the ICRC's statutory requirement to find 'reasonable and probable grounds' before ordering an examination adequately balances Charter values, and that a treating physician's report does not substitute for an independent medical examination.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found the termination of a nurse's employment amounted to double jeopardy.

The nurse had previously been suspended for her involvement in the assault of a patient, but the hospital later terminated her employment, claiming it had obtained new information about her role.

The arbitrator concluded there was no new information, only a reassessment of existing information, and thus the termination constituted double discipline for the same misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and fell within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred on consent pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The grievance arbitrator determined he lacked jurisdiction over the entire grievance.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordered the application to proceed, and directed the Registrar to set a hearing date.

The Working Facilities Coalition and Laura Miller, on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party, brought a motion to intervene in the application between the PC Ontario Fund and the Chief Electoral Officer.

The court granted the intervention and issued an order based on a revised draft.

The court denied a request for cross-examination on an affidavit filed in support of the motion to intervene, applied the usual costs provisions for interveners, and refused to limit the intervening party's appeal rights.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on a physician's appeal from a 2006 penalty decision.

The proposed fresh evidence was a 2007 decision finding the physician guilty of professional misconduct for breaching an undertaking.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that a subsequent conviction is not relevant to assessing the reasonableness of a prior penalty decision.

The Court noted that allowing such evidence would defeat the finality of the trial process and that the College could have adduced the underlying facts of the breach at the original penalty hearing.

The Ontario Nurses' Association brought a motion to be added as a party to both the trial appeal and the reconsideration appeal.

The court granted the motion, adding the Association as a party on conditions including a 30-page limit on its factum, a 30-minute limit on oral submissions, and no costs awarded to or against it.