Luisa 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.

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.

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 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 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.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing following a finding that the member engaged in professional misconduct, including practicing in a conflict of interest, failing to keep proper records, issuing false or misleading documents, and charging excessive fees.

The parties presented a joint submission on penalty and costs.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering an oral reprimand, a 9-month suspension (with 2 months remitted upon completion of ethics and record-keeping courses), practice restrictions regarding orthotics and footwear modifications, practice supervision, and $85,000 in costs.

The Member, a chiropodist, faced allegations of professional misconduct related to prescribing a high volume of orthotics to employees of a single company, failing to maintain patient records, and practicing while in a conflict of interest at a clinic that offered free shoes as incentives.

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

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a seven-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and terms and conditions on his certificate of registration.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $15,000 in costs to the College.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to providing inappropriate incentives (shoe credits) to patients for purchasing orthotics, submitting misleading insurance claims, and failing to maintain adequate patient records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, an 8-month suspension (with 2 months remitted upon completing ethics and records courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and $9,000 in costs.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to providing inappropriate incentives (shoe credits) to patients for purchasing orthotics, submitting misleading insurance claims, and failing to maintain adequate patient records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, an 8-month suspension (with 2 months remitted upon completing ethics and records courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and $9,000 in costs.

The Member, a registered chiropodist, faced allegations of professional misconduct related to the prescribing and dispensing of custom orthotics and orthopaedic footwear, primarily involving claims submitted to Green Shield Canada.

The Member admitted to failing to meet standards of practice, practicing in a conflict of interest, failing to keep proper records, and signing misleading documents.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of ethics and record-keeping courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and costs of $25,000.

The Member, a registered chiropodist, faced allegations of professional misconduct related to the prescribing and dispensing of custom orthotics and orthopaedic footwear, primarily involving claims submitted to Green Shield Canada.

The Member admitted to failing to meet standards of practice, practicing in a conflict of interest, failing to keep proper records, and signing misleading documents.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of ethics and record-keeping courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and costs of $25,000.