Luisa J. Ritacca

The appellant, a standardbred horse trainer, appealed penalties imposed after a horse he trained tested positive for Minoxidil, a Class III drug.

The drug was traced to the horse's owner, who used Rogaine and frequently interacted with the horse.

The panel found the appellant established due diligence, as the contamination was accidental and not readily discoverable.

Consequently, the panel reduced the penalty to a non-oppressive $300 fine and set aside the suspension.

However, the panel declined to waive the absolute liability rule breach, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify doing so.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for accessing the electronic health records of approximately 5,800 patients without consent or professional purpose over a six-year period.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found that the Member's actions constituted a breach of the College's practice standards and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification requirements.

The appellant, a licensed horse trainer, appealed penalties imposed after two of her horses tested positive for Levamisole and cocaine metabolites.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence prior to the first positive test, noting lax stable management and missing drug labels.

The panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing the fines to $1,500, imposing a full suspension until July 1, 2016, and ordering two years of probation upon the renewal of her licence.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct, including practising nursing while his certificate of registration was suspended and failing to respond appropriately to a medication order.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension of his certificate of registration, and the imposition of terms, conditions, and limitations on his certificate.

The appellant appealed the Director's proposal to refuse his application for a horse racing licence.

The appellant had a criminal record, including being on the sex offender registry for life and subject to a 20-year prohibition from attending areas where persons under 16 are present.

The Commission found that the appellant failed to fully and accurately disclose his record on his application forms, demonstrating a lack of integrity and honesty.

The appeal was denied and the refusal of the licence was confirmed.

The Appellants, a Thoroughbred Licensee and a Quarter Horse Licensee, appealed against rulings of the Ontario Racing Commission.

Following a hearing, the Commission ordered that the purse funds would not be paid to the Appellants but would be redistributed.

The Appellants were directed to return any held purse funds to the respective racetrack for redistribution, failing which they would not be licensed by the Commission.

Two horse trainers appealed suspensions and fines imposed after their horses tested positive for trace amounts of methamphetamine.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard expert evidence that the extremely low levels of the drug were the result of environmental contamination, not administration, and would not enhance performance.

The Commission waived the absolute liability rule for positive tests, finding that penalizing the trainers for unavoidable environmental contamination would be unjust and contrary to the public interest.

The appeals were allowed and the penalties set aside.

The appellant, a licensed trainer, appealed a ruling that placed his horse on the judges' list and made it ineligible to race for 90 days following a positive test for minoxidil.

The parties presented a joint submission to vary the dates of the horse's ineligibility and restore the result of a recent qualifier.

The Commission found the joint submission fair and reasonable, accepted it, and varied the ruling accordingly.

The appellant, a horse trainer, sought a stay of a 90-day suspension imposed on a horse following a positive test for minoxidil, a Class 3 drug.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted a 60-day stay, noting that minoxidil was a novel drug in this context, its effects and elimination time were unknown, and the trainer had a clean record.

The stay was granted to allow time for the ongoing investigation to be completed.

The Member, an audiologist, was alleged to have committed professional misconduct by using the title 'doctor' or 'Dr.' in her practice, contrary to section 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Member brought a motion challenging the College's jurisdiction, the validity of the professional misconduct regulation, the referral process, and the constitutionality of the title restriction under sections 2(b) and 7 of the Charter.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding the regulation valid and the Charter rights not infringed, relying on binding precedent that professional title restrictions do not violate freedom of expression or security of the person.

The Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension (one month remitted), an ethics course, practice inspections, and costs of $97,595.

The Member, an audiologist, was alleged to have committed professional misconduct by using the title 'doctor' or 'Dr.' in her practice, contrary to section 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Member brought a motion challenging the College's jurisdiction, the validity of the professional misconduct regulation, the referral process, and the constitutionality of the title restriction under sections 2(b) and 7 of the Charter.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding the regulation valid and the Charter rights not infringed, relying on binding precedent that professional title restrictions do not violate freedom of expression or security of the person.

The Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension (one month remitted), an ethics course, practice inspections, and costs of $97,595.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a decision denying his request for a stay of a suspension following a positive drug test for levamisole and pemoline in one of his horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted a 120-day stay with conditions, finding sufficient mitigating factors, including the appellant's reliance on a veterinarian and the lack of evidence that the substances were performance-enhancing.

The panel concluded that the balance of convenience and public interest favoured granting the stay pending a full hearing on the merits.

The former member applied for reinstatement of her certificate of registration, which was revoked in 2003 following criminal convictions for fraud.

The former member failed to attend the reinstatement hearing despite receiving adequate notice.

As the onus was on the former member to establish suitability for reinstatement and no evidence was led, the Discipline Committee dismissed the application.

The applicant applied for reinstatement of her nursing certificate of registration, which was revoked in 2009 for professional misconduct involving a sexual relationship with a client.

The College of Nurses of Ontario did not oppose the application, and both parties presented a joint submission on order.

Relying on an independent psychiatric evaluation that deemed the applicant a low risk to re-offend, as well as her subsequent rehabilitation and retraining as a Pharmacy Technician, the Discipline Committee granted the reinstatement subject to strict terms, conditions, and limitations, including practice monitoring and restrictions on independent community nursing.

The applicant corporation sought the return of $144,050 in cash seized by police during a drug and money laundering investigation targeting its former director.

The applicant argued it was the lawful owner of the funds, which it claimed were a business float, and that the funds were not required for the pending criminal proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that it was the lawful owner of the funds, and that the funds were required as evidence for the upcoming preliminary inquiry and trial.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct, including failing to keep adequate records, failing to perform patient assessments, and submitting false or misleading insurance claims to Great West Life for orthotics and orthopedic shoes.

The Member admitted to the allegations and entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of an ethics course), a two-year period of practice supervision, a reprimand, and $15,000 in costs.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a decision denying her request for a stay of a suspension following a positive test for methamphetamine in a horse.

The panel applied the three-part test for granting a stay.

Finding that the small amount of methamphetamine found would not have enhanced the horse's performance and that the appellant had no prior offences, the panel granted a two-month stay with conditions to allow for further testing of samples.

The Member, a Nurse Practitioner, faced allegations of professional misconduct for prescribing controlled substances (Lorazepam and Codeine) without authorization and misappropriating approximately $19,000 in public funds from a Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic to benefit family and friends.

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

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and various remedial terms and conditions on his certificate of registration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a penalty imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission for a positive drug test involving furosemide.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission erred by treating furosemide as a Class V drug without explanation, as it is not classified as such in the Uniform Classification Guidelines.

The court held the penalty decision was unreasonable, granted the application, and remitted the matter to the Commission for re-determination.

The Member, a registered practical nurse, was randomly selected to participate in a practice assessment as part of the College's Quality Assurance program.

Despite multiple notifications and opportunities, the Member failed to participate or complete any portion of the process.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee.

The panel ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration, but declined to order costs.