Luisa Ritacca

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 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 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.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for practising nursing while her certificate of registration was suspended and for making false statements on her annual renewal form.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct, noting her persistent disregard for the regulatory process.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering an oral reprimand and the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration.

Gabriella Sasso and Ronald Adams appealed Notices of Proposed Orders of Suspension and fines issued by the Director for violating 'hidden trainer' rules by associating with a suspended trainer.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found clear, cogent, and compelling evidence that the suspended trainer was improperly involved in their business.

However, the panel concluded the proposed penalties were too severe, as the appellants had been taken advantage of by the suspended trainer.

The panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing Sasso's suspension to six months and fine to $2,000, and Adams's suspension to eight months and fine to $5,000.

The panel also ordered the release of frozen purse monies to the owners and drivers.

The Member, a Nurse Practitioner, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to participate in the College's Quality Assurance program, prescribing testosterone (a controlled substance) without authorization, and failing to document her assessment and treatment of two clients.

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

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms and conditions including meetings with a nursing expert, a mentorship arrangement, and mandatory participation in the Quality Assurance program.

The Member's subsequent appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for multiple allegations of professional misconduct, including patient abuse, unauthorized use of restraints, and falsifying medical records in a psychiatric intensive care unit.

The discipline panel found that the nurse confined a vulnerable patient without clinical justification, applied five-point restraints inappropriately, failed to monitor the patient, used abusive language, and falsified the patient's chart to justify her actions.

The panel concluded that the nurse's actions constituted professional misconduct, abuse, and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

As the nurse had already resigned her certificate of registration, the panel noted that revocation would have been the appropriate penalty.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the Member, a Registered Nurse, committed professional misconduct by elbowing an elderly, combative client in the face.

The allegations rested primarily on the testimony of a Personal Support Worker who claimed to have witnessed the incident.

The Discipline Committee assessed the credibility of the witnesses and preferred the evidence of the Member, finding the PSW's testimony inconsistent and the mechanics of the alleged strike physically improbable.

The panel concluded that the College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities and dismissed all charges.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for sexually abusing a vulnerable, intoxicated client in the emergency department.

The client alleged the nurse placed the client's hand on his penis and masturbated while the client was incapacitated.

The panel found the client's testimony highly credible and corroborated by security video footage, which contradicted the nurse's alternative explanation.

The panel concluded the nurse committed professional misconduct, including sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent nurse for practicing while suspended and failing to comply with a 2012 Discipline Committee order.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The panel found the respondent ungovernable, noting she had breached all terms of the prior order, deceived employers, and continued to work while suspended.

The panel ordered the immediate revocation of the respondent's certificate of registration, to take effect if she ever successfully applies for reinstatement of her administratively revoked certificate.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who continued to practise nursing after voluntarily surrendering her certificate of registration.

The member used a different name, falsified annual payment cards, and misled her employers about her registration status.

She was also criminally convicted of theft, fraud, and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct, noting her actions were disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee revoked her certificate of registration and ordered an oral reprimand.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent, a Registered Practical Nurse, for criminal convictions including theft, forgery, and impaired driving, as well as for exploiting vulnerable clients.

The respondent was found to have misappropriated property, breached therapeutic boundaries, and engaged in disgraceful and dishonourable conduct.

The Discipline Committee found all allegations proven and ordered the revocation of the respondent's certificate of registration.