Maria Kotsopoulos

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by accessing the electronic health records of 43 patients without consent, authorization, or any professional purpose.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found that the Member's conduct contravened the standards of practice and was dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing an oral reprimand, a 3-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and terms, conditions, and limitations including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification with spot audits.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to administer medications to multiple patients at a long-term care facility and falsifying records to indicate the medications had been given.

The Member admitted to the allegations and pled guilty to criminal charges of failing to provide the necessaries of life.

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

The Member permanently resigned her certificate of registration and was ordered to appear for an oral reprimand.

A discipline panel found a social worker guilty of extensive professional misconduct arising from a prolonged therapeutic relationship with a vulnerable client.

The admitted misconduct included boundary crossings, conflicts of interest involving multiple family members, confidentiality breaches, failure to respond appropriately to dependency and addiction issues, failure to report child protection concerns, improper termination, and inappropriate fee practices.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a nine-month suspension with a conditional remission component, remedial ethics training, practice restrictions, publication, and costs.

Because of the publication ban, identifying details concerning the client were not reproduced.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of video surveillance footage from a hallway where she alleged she was assaulted by security guards.

The respondent opposed the request, stating that no camera exists in that area and all relevant footage had already been produced.

The Tribunal noted that while the footage would be arguably relevant, it cannot order the production of something that does not exist.

The request was denied, subject to the applicant's right to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination by the respondent, a finance manager at a car dealership, based on comments made in a Small Claims Court Defence and actions during settlement negotiations.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the comments in the Small Claims Court Defence were protected by absolute privilege.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no facts connecting the alleged unfair treatment to his age.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to events from 1999/2000 as untimely, finding no reasonable explanation for the 15-year delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations of discrimination based on disability, age, gender identity, and gender expression for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation to proceed to a full hearing, finding the applicant had alleged sufficient facts to establish a potential link to the respondent's denial of her 2015 application.

The applicant, a former police officer, sought to amend his human rights application to include an allegation of reprisal, claiming the corporate respondent filed his application in proceedings against him under the Police Services Act.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents and that notice be given to the Toronto Police Service.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application, finding further evidence was needed to determine if the conduct constituted reprisal.

The Tribunal declined to remove the personal respondents at this stage and found no need to give notice to the Toronto Police Service.

The applicant, a restaurant owner of South American origin, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation and property management company discriminated against him on the basis of ethnic origin, national origin, and race.

He claimed the respondents selectively enforced condominium rules regarding temporary signage, changed the voting procedure for Declaration amendments to prevent his expansion, delayed his permanent signage approval, and failed to cut grass near his unit.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions, such as enforcing a uniform signage plan across all units and following a vote by owners to change the amendment procedure.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a nexus between the adverse treatment and a protected Code ground.

The respondents failed to file a Response to a human rights application, leading the Tribunal to issue an interim decision deeming them to have waived their right to participate.

The respondents subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to reverse that decision and permit them to file a late Response.

They explained that the delay was caused by awaiting approval for the retention of counsel from their insurer's legal committee.

The Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory and, in the interests of fairness and due process, set aside the previous order and allowed the respondents to participate.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by telephone, but the applicant failed to attend.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had proper notice of the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the applicant's discrimination application pending the conclusion of a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceeding.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the WSIB proceeding only dealt with whether her injury recurrence was work-related, not the main human rights issues.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that although there was some factual overlap, the main issues before the Tribunal were not before the WSIB.

The applicant, a minor hockey player, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and age after his playing time was reduced and he was cut from a competitive team.

The applicant argued that the coaches' decisions were motivated by his family's refusal to participate in a 'party hard' culture, his parents' and sister's disabilities, and his father's age.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that while the coaches' discretionary decisions may have been perceived as unfair, there was no evidence linking the adverse treatment to any Code-protected grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, receipt of social assistance, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's complaints primarily concerned the termination of her co-op membership and general allegations against the property manager and a former board member.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to link her complaints to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and race filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding.

They sought leave to amend their Responses and to remove the personal respondent from the Application.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Responses, finding it fair and just with no prejudice to the applicant.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal also removed the personal respondent, noting there were no specific allegations against her and the corporate respondent had pled that it made the employment decisions.

The applicant, who is over 80 years old, alleged age discrimination after being quoted a higher automobile insurance premium than his younger daughter for a similar vehicle.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing that the broker (Atrens-Counsel) does not set rates and that the insurer (Western Assurance) is protected by s. 22 of the Human Rights Code, which permits age-based distinctions in insurance if reasonable and bona fide.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the broker but allowed the claim against the insurer to proceed to a full hearing, finding it was not evident at the preliminary stage that the insurer had no practical alternative to relying on age as a risk factor.

The self-represented appellant appealed the final judgment of the Superior Court of Justice striking her statements of claim.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the comprehensive reasons of the judge at first instance and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $1,000 to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing her action for failing to comply with court orders, specifically failing to answer undertakings and pay costs.

The appellant argued the Master failed to give sufficient weight to her impecuniosity and the resulting denial of access to justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master made no error of principle or palpable and overriding error, as impecuniosity is not a shield for a party who consistently fails to act reasonably.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

After developing an undiagnosed illness that caused seizures and exhaustion, the applicant was directed by her employer to take a leave of absence.

When she returned to work after finding effective medication, the employer disabled her computer and sent a letter directing her not to return until she was completely free of the illness.

The respondents did not appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was terminated due to her disability in violation of section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded $71,623.89 for lost wages and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.