Lorne Honickman

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 Member was found to have committed professional misconduct involving non-consensual sexual touching and inappropriate messages directed at students and a junior employee.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought revocation while the Member sought a 3-4 month suspension.

The Discipline Committee imposed a 6-month suspension, a reprimand, and mandatory ethics courses, noting the serious nature of the boundary violations and exploitation of power imbalances, balanced against the Member's lack of prior discipline history.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $50,000 in costs.

The College alleged that the Member, an instructor at a traditional Chinese medicine school, committed professional misconduct involving three complainants.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member touched Complainant C's buttocks without consent, sent inappropriate and sexually suggestive messages to Complainant A (a former and current student), and touched Complainant B's buttocks without consent during a class demonstration.

The Committee rejected the Member's denials and his theory that the complaints were fabricated due to the influence of another student.

The Committee concluded that the Member's actions constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct, as well as conduct unbecoming a practitioner.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario sought to withdraw all allegations against the respondent set out in a Notice of Hearing.

The parties agreed to resolve the proceedings on the basis of an undertaking executed by the respondent, in which he agreed to resign from the College and never re-apply for registration or provide psychological services in any jurisdiction.

The Discipline Committee granted the request to withdraw the allegations, finding it to be in the public interest and protective of the public given the respondent's permanent resignation.

The member, a psychologist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession in preparing an independent medical examination report for a client seeking disability benefits.

The report contained internal inconsistencies, factual errors regarding verifiable biographical and medical data, and was poorly written.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a nine-month restriction on the member performing clinical assessments except under the guidance and support of a peer supervisor, along with $3,500 in costs.

The applicants, who were foster parents, sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child who had lived with them for 22 months.

The society had removed the child and refused the adoption due to a verified child protection concern regarding unexplained bruising on another foster child in the applicants' care.

The Board found the society's investigation was significantly flawed and concluded the bruising was likely the result of accidental infliction of harm during a game.

Determining that the applicants posed no risk of harm and that the child was strongly attached to them, the Board rescinded the society's decision and ordered the child placed with the applicants for adoption.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty of $2,000 against the appellant establishment for allegedly exceeding its licensed capacity by 10 patrons.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the inspector's evidence and noted that only one count was performed, which was not a precise 'count-out'.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the establishment was over capacity.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for allegedly exceeding the licensed indoor capacity of its establishment, contrary to section 43 of O. Reg. 719/90.

AGCO inspectors conducted walk-through counts that showed the indoor capacity of 93 was exceeded.

The appellant argued the count methodology was unreliable and that it had its own capacity controls in place.

The Tribunal found the inspectors' evidence credible and reliable, concluding that the Registrar proved on a balance of probabilities that the capacity was exceeded.

The monetary penalty was confirmed.