Marie Henein

The Member, a registered nurse, was convicted of sexual interference and sexual touching under the Criminal Code.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations based on these convictions.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty with a slight variation, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a 12-month suspension, and practice restrictions, including a prohibition on working with individuals under 16 years of age.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for professional misconduct.

The nurse admitted to failing to promptly assess a client complaining of chest pains, making inappropriate comments to the client, and making disparaging remarks about colleagues.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the nurse guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a four-month suspension, a reprimand, and various remedial conditions on the nurse's certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to her treatment of an agitated psychiatric client.

The Member admitted to yelling at the client, unintentionally slapping the client on the face and arm, and roughly removing the client's clothing while assisting in placing the client in restraints.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an 8-week suspension, a reprimand, and remedial conditions on the Member's certificate of registration.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his orthodontic practice.

The appellant raised several procedural and substantive grounds of appeal, including a reasonable apprehension of bias, issue estoppel arising from a prior undertaking, inappropriate use of expert evidence, non-disclosure, and the severity of the penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding no procedural unfairness, no error in the committee's evidentiary rulings, and that the remedial penalty was reasonable and necessary to protect the public.

The appellant sought to appeal his convictions to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right, relying on a dissent in the court below.

The Supreme Court quashed the appeal, finding that the dissent relied upon could not be construed as a dissent on a question of law alone.

As leave to appeal was not sought, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for breaching his parole conditions and a previous Discipline Committee order by using alcohol and drugs, and for adducing false evidence regarding his sobriety at a prior discipline hearing.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

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 a 90-day suspension, a reprimand, and conditions on his certificate of registration requiring employer notification.

The appellant, an 18-year-old driver, was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm after his vehicle suddenly swerved across a median into oncoming traffic, killing one passenger and injuring others.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of a surviving passenger who described the vehicle jerking but could not say if the appellant deliberately caused it or was trying to regain control.

The Court of Appeal found the verdict unreasonable, holding that the evidence of a two-to-three-second loss of control, without proof of deliberate swerving or prior bad driving, could not support a finding of a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable driver.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by viewing pornographic images on workplace computers during work hours over a period of several months.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission as to Penalty.

The Member was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was suspended for 30 days, and terms and conditions were imposed on his practice for 12 months.

The member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for accessing, downloading, and storing pornographic materials on hospital computers over several years.

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

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The panel accepted the College's penalty submission, ordering a reprimand, a 30-day suspension, and conditions on the member's certificate of registration, while denying the member's request to withhold publication of his name.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for failing to accurately assess and document a client's heel ulcer, and for continuing to practise and hold herself out as a nurse while her certificate of registration was suspended for non-payment of fees.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct on all allegations.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a nine-month suspension, terms and conditions on her certificate, and $1,500 in costs.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to Germany and applied for judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender him.

Germany sought the appellant's extradition on charges of tax evasion, fraud, forgery, and bribery related to secret commissions earned from international arms and aircraft sales.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to justify committal and holding that the double criminality rule was satisfied for the tax offences.

The Court also dismissed the application for judicial review, concluding that the Minister did not err in interpreting the extradition treaty, assessing the evidence, or finding that surrender would not be unjust or oppressive.

The appellant, a former Crown Attorney suffering from bipolar affective disorder, pleaded guilty to fraud and breach of trust for misappropriating funds from a charity and a client, and for improperly negotiating plea bargains to secure restitution for that client.

The sentencing judge imposed a total of 24 months' incarceration, finding that the medical evidence did not support a causal link between the appellant's mental illness and his criminal behaviour.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge misconstrued the psychiatric evidence regarding the inadequacy of the appellant's lithium levels and his uncontrolled hypomanic state.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the sentence was varied to a blended sentence of 12 months' incarceration followed by a 12-month conditional sentence.

The appellant, aged 75 and in very poor health, was convicted of indecent assault and sexual assault and sentenced to 14 months' incarceration.

After serving 2.5 months, he was granted bail pending appeal.

On appeal, fresh evidence showed his health had further declined, requiring 24-hour nursing care, and that provincial facilities were inadequate for his needs.

With the Crown's consent, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and varied the remainder of his sentence to a 12-month conditional sentence with strict conditions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving causing death after driving his truck through a stop sign and colliding with another vehicle, killing the driver.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the mens rea requirement for dangerous driving and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the modified objective test from R. v. Hundal and that the verdict was supported by the evidence, including the appellant's failure to stop, lack of evasive action, and the absence of visibility impairment.

The College of Nurses of Ontario alleged that the member verbally and physically abused a client.

During the hearing, the College's key witness gave inconsistent testimony during cross-examination and became unwilling to continue.

The College requested that the allegations be dismissed as it could no longer meet the standard of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.

The panel dismissed the allegations.

The member subsequently sought costs, arguing the prosecution was unwarranted.

The panel denied the costs request, finding that the proceedings were reasonably justified based on initial eyewitness evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing death after driving his vehicle off a dock as a prank, resulting in the drowning of a passenger and a dog.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's admission of prior discreditable conduct, finding it relevant to the dangerous driving charge.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's statements to police or his credibility.

The sentence of two years less a day and a five-year driving prohibition was upheld, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for falsely claiming to hold a Doctor of Education, Master of Science, and Doctor of Nursing Science over a four-year period.

These false credentials led to promotions within her hospital employer.

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

The panel ordered an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension, and a requirement that the Member notify any employer of the penalty decision for a period of one year upon resuming practice.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking, as well as his sentence imposed in absentia.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting expert evidence from a police officer regarding drug trafficking and the roles of persons in a three-person transaction.

The Court of Appeal held that while the officer was allowed too much latitude, the core of his testimony was admissible and the trial judge was aware of its limitations.

The court also rejected arguments that the verdict was unreasonable and that evidence from one count could not be considered for another.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit and the sparse reasons were due to the appellant having absconded.

The appellant pleaded guilty to impersonation, fraud over $5,000, and failure to comply with a recognizance, and was sentenced to fourteen months' imprisonment and eighteen months' probation.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it was demonstrably unfit and seeking a reduction based on fresh evidence of a serious medical condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the appellant's criminal record and the commission of the second offence while on bail.

The court also declined to reduce the sentence based on the fresh evidence, noting the institution's obligation to provide adequate medical treatment and the upcoming parole hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for fraud over $5,000 related to welfare fraud.

He had pleaded guilty at trial and received a twelve-month conditional sentence and a restitution order.

On appeal, he argued his plea was entered under duress, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and his lawyer had a conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support his claims, noting he admitted the facts at trial, and upholding the sentence which was based on a joint submission.