Lisa Hamilton

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted misconduct arising from failure to make a mandatory report of alleged sexual abuse by another regulated health professional, contrary to s. 85.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, and from repeated failure to respond to the client and the other regulator.

The tribunal held that the conduct breached the standard of practice, contravened the Code, was psychologically or emotionally abusive to a vulnerable client, and constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming.

Applying the joint-submission framework from Anthony Cook, the panel accepted a jointly proposed penalty.

The tribunal imposed a reprimand, a one-month suspension, extensive remedial and monitoring terms, and costs of $6,055.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and an agreed statement of facts establishing sexual misconduct, boundary violations, exploitative communications, and false recordkeeping in relation to a vulnerable former client receiving mental health services.

The panel granted a publication ban and sealing order under s. 28(7) to protect the client’s identity and clinical information.

The misconduct was found to breach multiple provisions of the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, including sexual relations with a client, conflicts of interest, failure to maintain boundaries, and disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, revocation, a five-year reapplication bar, publication of the decision, and $5,000 in costs.

The College alleged that the Member, a chiropodist, engaged in sexual abuse and professional misconduct by having inappropriate personal and sexual communications with a patient and engaging in inappropriate touching during an unscheduled clinic visit.

The Discipline Committee found the patient's evidence to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and evasiveness during cross-examination.

Conversely, the Member's evidence was clear, consistent, and supported by clinical notes and clinic security protocols.

The College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities, and the allegations were dismissed.

The College alleged that the Member, a chiropodist, engaged in sexual abuse and professional misconduct by having inappropriate personal and sexual communications with a patient and engaging in inappropriate touching during an unscheduled clinic visit.

The Discipline Committee found the patient's evidence to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and evasiveness during cross-examination.

Conversely, the Member's evidence was clear, consistent, and supported by clinical notes and clinic security protocols.

The College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities, and the allegations were dismissed.

The Applicant applied for reinstatement of her certificate of registration, which had been revoked five years prior after a finding of sexual abuse of a patient.

The conduct involved treating her spouse before a spousal exemption was enacted.

The College did not oppose the application.

The Discipline Committee found the Applicant met the requirements for reinstatement, noting the low risk of reoffending and the current spousal exemption.

The application was granted, subject to the Applicant completing a refresher course.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to comply with the College's Quality Assurance program, including failing to submit self-assessment forms and failing to participate in a peer and practice assessment.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, terms and conditions on the Member's certificate of registration, and $4,000 in costs.

Discipline proceeding arising from admitted therapist-client boundary violations, including disclosures of romantic feelings, personal and romantic email and telephone communications, conflict of interest, and failure to clearly and promptly terminate the therapeutic relationship.

The panel held that the member's conduct constituted professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, notwithstanding the absence of physical intimacy and the client's view that no harm occurred.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the panel accepted the agreed penalty.

The order included a reprimand, a four-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice supervision, ethics and boundaries education, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent, a psychologist, made a racist comment to her during their work together.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred, as the applicant had also filed a concurrent complaint with the College of Psychologists of Ontario regarding the same comment.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the College proceeding was ongoing and had not yet appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the College's proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them based on a designated assessment centre report.

The applicant applied for arbitration, arguing he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a contract coordinator due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological issues.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform his essential tasks, noting that the DAC assessment was flawed and did not adequately consider his psychological issues and pain reactivity.

The insurer was ordered to pay ongoing income replacement benefits, provide an offer for loss of earning capacity benefits, and pay the applicant's arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, physiotherapy expenses, and the cost of a psychological assessment.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could return to his work as a piece-work upholsterer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and residual physical problems that substantially disabled him from performing the high-speed, repetitive tasks of his employment.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay the claimed benefits, along with a special award under section 282(10) of the Insurance Act for unreasonably withholding payments.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.