Luisa J. Ritacca

The Member, a veterinarian, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for viewing pornography on a workplace computer during working hours while other staff were present.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a veterinarian.

Applying the public interest test, the Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a public reprimand, a 1.5-month suspension, practice monitoring conditions, ongoing therapy, and $5,000 in costs.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the member regarding his treatment of a dog that presented with stiffness and later developed severe kidney failure.

The Discipline Committee found that the member failed to recommend appropriate diagnostic testing or aggressive treatment for the dog's kidney failure, and that his medical records were inaccurate and inadequate.

The Committee accepted the College's expert evidence and refused to qualify the member's proposed expert due to bias.

The member was found to have engaged in professional misconduct by failing to maintain the standards of practice, failing to make proper records, and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

At the first Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding the City's failure to make a decision on a mixed-use development application, the Toronto Wholesale Produce Association and the Ontario Food Terminal Board requested party status.

The Tribunal granted party status to both entities, noting their direct interest in land use compatibility issues due to their proximity to the subject property.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to discuss scoping issues and potential mediation.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct relating to the misdiagnosis of a puppy, failure to properly record discussions with the owner, and revising medical records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and the parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member's conduct serious and incompatible with professional expectations.

The Member was reprimanded, his license was suspended for two months, and he was ordered to complete remediation and pay $5,000 in costs.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for physically abusing a horse, failing to communicate clinical findings, and breaching client confidentiality on social media, the Discipline Committee determined the appropriate penalty and costs.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and remedial conditions including anger management, equine restraint training, and practice monitoring.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay 30% of the College's costs, fixed at $103,698.38, payable in installments following the suspension.

The appellant brought an action against her former lawyers alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence in connection with a wrongful dismissal settlement.

The appellant claimed the respondent lawyers conspired with her former employer, preferred the employer's interests, and induced her to enter into an improvident settlement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding no genuine issue for trial and rejecting allegations of collusion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge properly assessed whether the respondents' advice was reasonable and whether the settlement was improvident given the litigation risks.

The applicants sought to remit an arbitration matter back to the arbitrator under section 46(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator failed to address certain issues and that the purported transfer of shares in Power Investment Properties Inc. should be declared invalid.

The respondents sought enforcement of the arbitral awards.

The court dismissed the applicants' application as time-barred under section 47 of the Arbitration Act, finding that the 30-day deadline for bringing a section 46 application applies to all applications under section 46, including those seeking remittance under section 46(8).

The court granted the respondents' application to enforce the arbitral awards.

At a penalty and costs hearing following findings that the registrant sexually abused two patients and committed multiple additional acts of professional misconduct, the discipline panel held that revocation was mandatory under the Health Professions Procedural Code because the sexual abuse included sexual intercourse.

The panel rejected arguments alleging bias in the earlier merits reasons, held it was functus officio and could not revisit its findings, and found no merit in the contention that the patient relationships were merely incidental to employment or sexual relationships.

The panel also held that a victim impact statement was not a precondition to imposing penalty under s. 51(6).

It ordered a reprimand, immediate revocation, security for therapy and counselling funding for two patients, and substantial costs reflecting roughly two-thirds of the College's actual investigation and hearing expenses.

The discipline panel considered a registrant's admission that he falsely told a patient he had consulted an oral pathologist who agreed that a tongue lesion was non-urgent hyperkeratosis.

The panel held that the dishonesty, coupled with the lack of documentation and the resulting delay in cancer diagnosis, constituted professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Code and s. 2(59) of Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint submissions on penalty, the panel accepted a jointly proposed disposition centered on public protection, general deterrence, and the registrant's undertaking to resign permanently from practice in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.

The panel ordered a reprimand and costs of $7,500.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that the registrant persistently failed to comply with mandatory continuing education and reporting obligations under the quality assurance regime, despite repeated directions, reminders, extensions, and investigative follow-up.

The panel also denied a last-minute adjournment request brought through the registrant's daughter, finding insufficient evidence of inability to participate and no indication the registrant would engage later.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the panel held that the registrant failed to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee, breached the continuing education reporting requirements, failed to respond appropriately to written College enquiries, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.

A further hearing was directed on penalty and costs.

In a multi-notice professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant engaged in false and misleading insurance billing by causing claims for his own dental services to be submitted under other dentists’ names and provider numbers, and in one instance on a false service date.

The panel also found extensive professional misconduct in opioid prescribing and recordkeeping, including prescribing without documented justification, exceeding College guideline quantities and frequencies without rationale, failing to document informed consent, diagnoses, treatment plans, and root canal safeguards.

The panel further found that the registrant engaged in sexual relationships with two employees who were also his patients, amounting to sexual abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical conduct.

A separate allegation of inappropriate touching involving another employee-patient was not proven.

Most allegations were upheld, with limited exceptions under one notice.

The defendants, a law firm and its lawyers, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $20 million action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence brought by their former clients.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired with the opposing party in a prior wrongful dismissal action and negligently advised them, leading to an improvident settlement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a conflict of interest or professional negligence, and that the settlement was not improvident given the risks of continued litigation.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted allegations that he misrepresented himself as a friend's social worker in communications with another regulator and disclosed a client's personal health and identifying information to that friend without consent.

The panel found the admitted facts proved professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, handbook standards, and PHIPA, including dishonourable and unprofessional conduct, while stopping short of classifying the conduct as disgraceful because of significant mitigating personal health circumstances.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, remediation, and the principle that a joint submission should be accepted unless contrary to the public interest.

The resulting order imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice-related educational and regulatory conditions, publication, 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 appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision that allowed the respondent unitholder to park in designated accessible parking spaces and awarded him $1,500 in damages.

The appellant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parking dispute was connected to broader harassment claims falling under the section 117 carveout of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parking issue was severable and within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the unitholder was entitled to use the accessible spaces, the condominium could not charge back its enforcement costs, and the damages award was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the respondent's vexatious conduct during the hearing.

The plaintiff, Sharna Gayle, brought a motion to amend her Amended Statement of Claim in a solicitor's negligence action against Lerners LLP and its lawyers.

The proposed amendments sought to increase the damages claimed from $1,000,000 to $20,000,000 and to add extensive particulars detailing the alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, including allegations of conflict of interest due to "religious and personal affiliations." The court granted the amendment to increase the damages, affirming that such an increase does not constitute prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion to add the detailed particulars, finding that these proposed amendments violated Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by pleading evidence, explanations, and submissions rather than concise material facts.

The court also found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action and that the delay in seeking amendments was not excessive enough to presume non-compensable prejudice.

In a professional discipline matter, the registrant sought reconsideration after failing to deliver written submissions on penalty and costs by the agreed deadline.

The Panel held it was functus once it had released its final decision and found no authority in the governing legislation or committee rules to reopen the matter.

In any event, it would not have exercised any such discretion because counsel ignored follow-up communications, sought no extension, and offered no adequate explanation for the delay.

The request to reconsider the released penalty and costs decision was refused.

In a professional discipline penalty and costs decision, the panel addressed the mandatory consequences of a finding that a registrant sexually abused a patient by engaging in sexual intercourse.

Applying the mandatory penalty provisions, the panel held that revocation and a reprimand were required.

The panel also ordered reimbursement to the College for therapy and counselling funding already accessed by the patient and found this to be an appropriate case for a substantial costs order because the member’s conduct unnecessarily prolonged the hearing and increased expense.

The College recovered two-thirds of its actual costs, and the patient-identity publication restriction remained in place.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for failing to comply with an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) and failing to respond to College communications.

The respondent admitted to the allegations, citing stress and business issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a minimum three-month suspension, completion of specified courses, compliance with the outstanding ICRC orders, and $10,000 in costs.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for failing to comply with an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) and failing to respond to College communications.

The respondent admitted to the allegations, citing stress and business issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a minimum three-month suspension, completion of specified courses, compliance with the outstanding ICRC orders, and $10,000 in costs.