Luisa J. Ritacca

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's two construction defect actions for delay.

The actions were commenced in 2011 and 2012 but had not progressed to discoveries.

The plaintiff's former counsel claimed a 'mental block' prevented him from advancing the files, and the plaintiff's principal claimed ignorance of the delay.

The court found the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, noting the plaintiff's principal failed to monitor the litigation.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendants, including the death of a key witness.

The motions were granted and the actions dismissed.

A dental discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant planned and performed unnecessary oral surgery on a minor under general anaesthesia after reviewing another patient's CBCT scan and failing to review the patient chart.

The panel also found that informed consent was not obtained because the discussion of the procedure was insufficient, the written consent referred to the wrong tooth, and consent was not re-confirmed on the day of surgery.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel ordered a reprimand, completion of an informed-consent course, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from deficient recordkeeping and improper use of billing codes that resulted in insurance claims and related documents containing improper statements for multiple patients.

The tribunal accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the misconduct proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraph 28 of section 2 of Ontario Regulation 853.

Applying the joint penalty submission, the tribunal imposed a reprimand, mandatory remedial courses in recordkeeping and billing, practice monitoring for twenty-four months after course completion, and costs.

A publication restriction protecting patient identities was also ordered under s. 45(3).

Following liability findings for multiple forms of professional misconduct in dental practice, the discipline panel addressed penalty and costs on an uncontested joint submission.

The misconduct included unnecessary dental services, false or misleading documentation and claims, excessive or unreasonable fees, failure to collect co-payments properly, deficient records, and misconduct tied to financial benefit.

The panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a 12-month suspension, extensive suspension and practice conditions, remedial coursework, and monitoring.

The panel held that the proposed sanction was fair and reasonable, served specific and general deterrence, protected the public, and supported rehabilitation.

Costs of $200,000 were also ordered, representing approximately one third of the College’s hearing costs.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient by touching the patient's genitals without clinical purpose.

The Discipline Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, and reimbursement of up to $5,000 for the patient's therapy.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $135,000 in costs, representing a portion of the College's hearing expenses, noting the serious nature of the misconduct and the Member's actions that prolonged the proceedings.

A professional discipline panel found that the member committed professional misconduct arising from a systemic pattern of unnecessary radiographs, false and misleading insurance billings, billing for services not performed, charging excessive or unreasonable fees, failing to collect co-payments, and failing to provide complete patient records to the regulator.

Applying the civil standard of proof from F.H. v McDougall, the panel relied heavily on documentary records and found the billing discrepancies too numerous and persistent to be explained as innocent clerical mistakes.

The panel rejected the position that responsibility for billing errors could be delegated to staff, holding the clinic owner responsible for the conduct of the office and the claims submitted under his name.

The publication restriction protecting patient identities remained in force.

The applicants, who lost $150 million investing in Concordia International Corp., applied for a Norwich Order against the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

They sought trading data and client identities to identify short-sellers they believed conspired to illegally manipulate Concordia's share price.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the applicants had a bona fide potential claim for civil conspiracy, they failed to satisfy the other criteria for a Norwich Order.

Specifically, IIROC's role as a regulator did not constitute being 'mixed up' in the wrongdoing, the applicants already had sufficient information to pursue claims, and balancing IIROC's regulatory duties and privacy interests against the applicants' interests favoured denying the order.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for alleged sexual abuse and professional misconduct.

The allegations involved inappropriate touching of a patient's genitals during a urine sample collection in an emergency department, and inappropriately inviting the patient for a drink.

The Discipline Committee found that the physical sexual abuse occurred, constituting professional misconduct and a breach of therapeutic boundaries.

The Committee concluded the conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The allegation regarding the verbal invitation for a drink was dismissed as the College failed to meet its burden of proof.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the member’s admissions to multiple misconduct allegations involving deficient recordkeeping, excessive or unreasonable fees, false or misleading insurance accounts, and failure to collect patient co-payments.

The misconduct arose from treatment and billing practices across multiple dental offices over several years, including inaccurate charting, missing documentation, incorrect billing codes, claims using treatment dates that did not match actual service dates, and routine write-offs of co-payments.

The panel found the admitted facts substantiated professional misconduct under the governing health-professions regime and accepted a joint penalty submission notwithstanding concern about the member’s prior similar discipline history.

The penalty included a reprimand, a four-month suspension, remedial education, practice monitoring, suspension-related restrictions, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted billing a publicly funded children's dental program for restorative treatments on two minor patients that were not completed, and admitted related recordkeeping and billing misconduct.

The panel found professional misconduct under s.51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 31, 33, and 59 of s. 2 of Ontario Regulation 853.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, a four-month suspension, educational remediation, practice monitoring, and costs.

The panel held that the sanction met the goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, and public protection, while recognizing cooperation, remorse, and restitution.

The appellants (tenant and its successor) repudiated a commercial lease for an industrial property owned by the respondent.

The respondent was forced to sell the property and sued for damages.

The trial judge awarded $1,277,000 in damages, including lost rental profits and lost capital appreciation.

The appellants appealed, arguing the sale at fair market value fully mitigated damages and that lost capital appreciation was too remote.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that damages for lost capital appreciation were too remote under the Hadley v. Baxendale test, that the property was sold at fair market value, and that damages should be calculated using a discounted cash flow analysis based on the 2013 sale price with appropriate deductions for mitigation.

A discipline panel found a dentist guilty of professional misconduct for describing himself on his website as a specialist in orthodontics and as a specialist orthodontist while registered only as a general dentist.

The panel held that the member was responsible for misleading advertising published on his website even if the web provider made the error, and found the conduct unprofessional and unethical, particularly in light of a prior undertaking arising from similar conduct.

The panel imposed a reprimand, a six-week suspension, ethics remediation, and advance approval conditions for promotional materials.

The panel also ordered costs of $15,000 payable to the College.

Discipline proceeding arising from a complaint and investigation concerning a dentist’s long-term treatment of four members of the same family.

The panel accepted a guilty plea and agreed statement of facts establishing supervised neglect, failures in diagnosis and treatment, inadequate recordkeeping, absence of documented informed consent, and improper lorazepam prescribing for one patient.

The panel found professional misconduct on all allegations except one disputed particular under the prescribing allegation.

On penalty, the panel accepted a joint submission after the member voluntarily undertook to permanently resign, and ordered a reprimand and $5,000 in costs.

College discipline proceeding arising from a member's treatment of a patient involving multiple tooth extractions, temporomandibular joint-related care, inadequate recordkeeping, and failure to obtain informed consent.

The member admitted professional misconduct allegations under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the dentistry misconduct regulation, including unjustified extractions, failure to refer to specialists earlier, deficient charting, and disgraceful or unprofessional conduct.

The panel found the admissions voluntary and unequivocal, accepted the agreed facts, and held that the evidence substantiated the misconduct.

The panel accepted an amended joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, educational courses, practice restrictions, monitoring, publication on the register, and $2,500 in costs.

Professional discipline decision arising from a dentist’s admitted failure to respond appropriately to repeated written enquiries from the regulator, failure to produce and maintain a patient record, and failure to cooperate with an investigation.

The panel accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found all misconduct allegations proven, except that the College did not seek a finding that the member was ungovernable.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty imposing an immediate suspension until the patient record is produced, followed by a consecutive three-month suspension, remedial education, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication restriction protected the identities of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, was found to have committed professional misconduct by misappropriating narcotics from a client at a retirement home on multiple occasions and by failing to report the resulting criminal charges to the College.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations proven and ordered an oral reprimand, a seven-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations on her practice, including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification requirements.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the member's guilty plea and agreed facts establishing that he allowed an unregistered and unregulated individual to perform intra-oral procedures, prescribe medication, and access his prescription pad in his dental office.

The panel held that the member knew or ought to have known the individual was not authorized to practise and that his failure to investigate credentials was conduct reasonably regarded by the profession as wholly unprofessional.

On a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, required successful completion of the ProBE ethics program, ordered practice monitoring, and ordered costs of $5,000.

A publication ban protected the identities of patients referred to in the hearing.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to his involvement in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud scheme at a clinic.

The Member admitted to overprescribing orthotics and orthopaedic shoes without proper assessment, failing to maintain adequate patient records, and submitting false or misleading invoices to insurers.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, and $15,000 in costs.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to his involvement in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud scheme at a clinic.

The Member admitted to overprescribing orthotics and orthopaedic shoes without proper assessment, failing to maintain adequate patient records, and submitting false or misleading invoices to insurers.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, and $15,000 in costs.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced disciplinary proceedings for discontinuing a client's life support without medical authorization and failing to document the responsible physician's refusal to authorize the discontinuation.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

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

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