Margaret Jill Dougherty

The appellant, a registered social service worker, appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of professional misconduct for surreptitiously recording a meeting and posting a hyperlink to confidential child protection records online.

She argued the Committee erred because she had been acquitted of criminal and provincial offences arising from the same conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee was not bound by the criminal acquittal due to different evidentiary standards and evidence.

The court upheld the Committee's findings that the appellant published identifying information contrary to the Child and Family Services Act and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The penalty, including a six-month suspension, was affirmed.

A discipline panel found that the member committed professional misconduct by making sexualized comments to a vulnerable counselling client, pursuing sexual topics after the client expressed discomfort, and disclosing intimate details of his own sexual history.

The panel also found longstanding and serious failures to maintain required clinical documentation, including progress notes, psycho-social assessments, and treatment plans across multiple files.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the panel accepted the evidence of the client and corroborating witnesses as clear, cogent and convincing.

All allegations of professional misconduct were proven.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct involving forged client signatures, fabricated clinical records, backdated documentation, inaccurate service information, and emailing confidential client records to a personal email account.

The panel accepted the admissions and found professional misconduct proven under the governing statute and regulation, while holding that the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional but not disgraceful given the acknowledged health context.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty aimed at public protection and remediation.

The order included a reprimand, a suspended eight-month suspension effective only upon any future reissuance of registration, conditions requiring ethics and clinical documentation courses, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In this professional discipline penalty decision, the panel imposed a substantial sanction after prior findings that the member deliberately disclosed and promoted access to confidential child-protection-related information belonging to numerous families.

The panel held that penalty had to be grounded in public protection, specific and general deterrence, and remediation, and rejected submissions that no order should issue because the member viewed herself as a whistleblower or had been acquitted in related criminal and Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

The order included a reprimand, a six-month suspension with one month conditionally remittable, educational and regulatory conditions, employer-notification or supervision requirements, publication, and costs.

The panel also held that the governing statute required it to make a penalty order once professional misconduct had been found.

The plaintiffs, a group of affiliated wine manufacturers and retailers, brought an action against the LCBO, the AGCO, and the Crown challenging the 'Made Policy', which regulates where wineries can sell their products.

The parties brought six competing motions, including motions to strike pleadings, motions for summary judgment, and a motion regarding the late disclosure of a tolling agreement between the defendants.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' pleadings over the tolling agreement, finding it did not alter the expected adversarial landscape.

The court struck significant portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim against the LCBO and AGCO, particularly allegations relating to pre-2001 conduct that had been settled in prior litigation, and claims for intentional interference with economic relations.

The Crown's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against it.

The AGCO's and the plaintiffs' respective motions for summary judgment were dismissed, as the complex factual matrix and allegations of bad faith required a trial.

The Medical Officer of Health for Haldimand-Norfolk appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that struck down a requirement limiting the number of migrant farm workers to three per bunkhouse during their mandatory 14-day COVID-19 self-isolation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the HSARB erred in law by applying too high a standard of proof, failing to consider that the directive was a class order, and incorrectly concluding that the three-person limit was arbitrary.

The court restored the original order, emphasizing the precautionary principle and the vulnerability of migrant farm workers.

Three groups brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal from a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The underlying appeal concerned a medical officer of health's order limiting migrant farm workers to a maximum of three persons per bunkhouse to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The court granted leave to intervene to the human rights organization and a coalition of legal clinics, finding they would make useful and distinct contributions regarding international human rights and the specific vulnerabilities of migrant workers.

The court dismissed the motion by the religious organization, finding it had not demonstrated a unique legal perspective or expertise.

Discipline proceeding arising from admitted therapist-client boundary violations, including disclosures of romantic feelings, personal and romantic email and telephone communications, conflict of interest, and failure to clearly and promptly terminate the therapeutic relationship.

The panel held that the member's conduct constituted professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, notwithstanding the absence of physical intimacy and the client's view that no harm occurred.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the panel accepted the agreed penalty.

The order included a reprimand, a four-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice supervision, ethics and boundaries education, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the tribunal found the member guilty of professional misconduct for repeatedly accessing sealed adoption records without authorization, copying or noting their contents, and disclosing the information to an adoptee with whom she was in a personal relationship.

The tribunal held that pre-registration conduct could ground discipline where it bore on current suitability to practise and found the member's confidentiality breach, dishonesty during the employer investigation, and resulting harm to affected persons demonstrated disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty despite expressing concern that revocation might otherwise have been warranted.

It imposed an oral reprimand, a 16-month suspension with partial remission conditional on compliance, remediation terms, publication, and $13,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a Master upholding numerous refusals made during Rule 39.03 examinations of non-party witnesses.

The examinations related to interlocutory motions concerning the late disclosure of a tolling agreement between the defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged 14 errors of fact and law, primarily challenging the Master's findings on litigation privilege, common interest privilege, and the scope of permissible questions for Rule 39.03 witnesses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law, and affirming that the documents and communications surrounding the tolling agreement were protected by privilege.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel dismissed the member's motion to close the hearing, holding that the evidence did not establish a compelling basis under the governing statute or the SPPA to overcome the presumption of public access.

The member admitted allegations arising from inappropriate personal disclosures, boundary violations, repeated contact with a vulnerable client outside sessions and after termination, and disclosure of client information to the client's sister.

The panel found professional misconduct proven and accepted a partial joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a five-month suspension with one month conditionally remittable, mandatory boundaries and ethics training, and costs.

On publication, the panel ordered publication with the member's name but directed limited redactions of specific details of the misconduct as a narrower measure addressing the asserted risk of harm.

In this professional discipline decision, the panel found a social worker committed multiple acts of professional misconduct arising from family mediation, parenting coordination, and custody-access assessment work.

The admitted misconduct included acting beyond scope by using DSM-based diagnostic language, making unsubstantiated recommendations about clients and children, verbally abusing clients, prioritizing personal interests, using professional authority to harass or improperly influence clients, and failing to report child protection concerns forthwith under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The panel held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the Professional Misconduct Regulation, the Act, and the College’s standards framework.

It accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, remedial terms and conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel considered whether a registered social service worker committed professional misconduct by deliberately accessing confidential child-protection-related records on an agency website, posting a URL to one such document on Facebook, and posting a surreptitiously recorded video containing confidential material.

The panel held that posting the URL expanded public access to information that had the effect of identifying children or families involved in child protection proceedings, contrary to s. 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act.

It further held that this statutory breach was relevant to suitability to practise, breached professional confidentiality standards under the governing regulation and handbook, and constituted conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The allegations of professional misconduct were proven on a balance of probabilities.

A discipline panel found a registered social worker guilty of professional misconduct after she admitted issuing two letters for use in family-court custody and access proceedings without proper authorization, adequate evidentiary foundation, or balanced disclosure to all clients.

The panel held that the member failed to reset counselling goals after the parents' separation, breached confidentiality, made false, misleading, inaccurate or improper statements, and provided custody-related recommendations without conducting the type of comprehensive assessment required for such opinions.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The order imposed a reprimand, a six-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice conditions including an ethics course, therapy, supervision-related terms, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

The member moved to stay disciplinary proceedings arising from alleged unauthorized access to child protection records and online disclosure of confidential information until the completion of related criminal and Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework and the principle that stays of parallel civil or disciplinary proceedings are exceptional, the panel found the asserted prejudice to fair trial rights was speculative and unsupported by clear evidence.

The panel held that overlap in underlying facts did not eliminate the distinct public protection purpose, issues, and standard of proof in the discipline matter.

The balance of convenience favoured the College and the public interest in timely professional regulation, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations, prior delay, and the indefinite nature of the requested stay.

The motion was dismissed and the parties were directed to schedule the discipline hearing.

In a professional discipline motion, the member sought to quash a notice of hearing on the basis that the alleged misconduct occurred before registration.

The Panel held that the Discipline Committee has jurisdiction over pre-membership conduct where a broad and purposive reading of the governing statute, informed by the College's public protection mandate, supports that result.

The Panel rejected the submission that the registration regime exhaustively addresses pre-registration misconduct and held that the presumption against retrospectivity does not bar jurisdiction in this public protection context.

It adopted a suitability-based threshold, holding that jurisdiction extends to pre-membership conduct that calls into question the member's current suitability to practise.

The College prosecuted a discipline case arising from a social worker’s prolonged boundary violations with a client receiving counselling and psychotherapy, including frequent after-hours electronic communications, inappropriate self-disclosure, inadequate charting, and termination of services without a proper termination session.

The Panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the governing statute and regulation, including failures to maintain boundaries, document care, obtain timely consultation, and provide professionally grounded services.

The Panel held that the conduct would reasonably be regarded as dishonourable or unprofessional.

It accepted a joint submission on penalty and imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension, remedial terms including training, psychotherapy and supervision, publication, and $1,000 in costs.

The applicant, a registered social worker acting as a parenting coordinator and arbitrator, sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.

The Committee had dismissed a complaint against her but included non-binding advice regarding the clarity of her professional communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the issues were moot because the complaint was not referred to the Discipline Committee and the applicant faced no professional jeopardy.

The Court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting the College's concession that it lacked jurisdiction to investigate the decision-making process of a social worker acting as an arbitrator in family law proceedings.

The Member and his engineering firm pled guilty to professional misconduct for signing and sealing deficient mechanical, electrical, and fire safety drawings for a proposed hotel and retail building.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, which included the revocation of the Member's licence and Certificate of Authorization, suspended on the condition that the Member resign, surrender his Certificate, and never reapply.

The Committee ordered the decision to be published with names, finding that the penalty amounted to a revocation triggering mandatory publication under the Professional Engineers Act, and that publication was in the public interest.

The appellant, an early childhood educator, appealed a discipline committee's order that he pay $257,353.76 in hearing costs after being found guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing a child.

The appellant argued the committee lacked jurisdiction to award costs because it found his conduct during the hearing was not unreasonable, relying on the tribunal's rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the committee to interpret its home statute as granting broad discretion to award costs following a finding of misconduct, which prevailed over any conflicting procedural rules.