Megan E. Shortreed

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse who acted as the Nurse in Charge at a remote northern nursing station.

The College alleged that the nurse failed to meet standards of practice by wasting narcotics without a witness, administering multiple doses of narcotics without a physician's order, failing to properly document the administration and disposal of narcotics, and failing to maintain appropriate security systems for narcotics, including leaving narcotic keys unattended.

The Discipline Committee found the nurse committed professional misconduct on all counts, noting her blatant disregard for policies and procedures which facilitated the theft of narcotics.

The nurse's certificate of registration was revoked, and she was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and $10,000 in costs.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for bathing one patient in cold water and preparing to bathe another in cold water out of anger.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to meet the standards of practice and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and the completion of remedial courses on patient-focused care and abuse prevention.

The appellant appealed an order of a Master dismissing its motion to amend a case management timetable and granting the respondent's cross-motion to dismiss the action for breach of court orders and timetables.

The court considered the appropriate standard of review for a Master's final discretionary decision, noting conflicting jurisprudence between a rehearing standard and a 'clearly wrong' standard.

The court concluded it was unnecessary to finally determine the standard, as the appeal would be dismissed under either standard.

The Master was not clearly wrong, and the court would have exercised its discretion in the same way.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his certificate of registration for sexual abuse.

During the hearing, the College called an expert witness who was subsequently appointed to the Discipline Committee before the panel released its reasons.

The Divisional Court found that a reasonably informed bystander would conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the panel members had to weigh the expert's evidence while she was their colleague on the Committee.

The decision of the panel was quashed as void ab initio.

The appellants, minority shareholders in a family investment company, appealed the dismissal of their application for an oppression remedy under s. 248(2) of the Business Corporations Act.

They alleged that the company's directors engaged in oppressive conduct by paying improper management fees to a director's holding company and by making an undocumented loan to the company president.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the management agreement was a reasonable business arrangement and that the loan, while poorly documented, was made in the best interests of the company and did not unfairly prejudice the appellants.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, was found guilty of professional misconduct after being convicted of defrauding an elderly, vulnerable couple of over $34,000 while employed as their caregiver.

The Member did not attend the discipline hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the revocation of her Certificate of Registration, emphasizing the severe breach of trust and the need for general deterrence.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a Registered Practical Nurse for emotionally and verbally abusing a quadriplegic client and misappropriating his property while acting as his live-in caregiver.

The Discipline Committee found that the nurse breached therapeutic boundaries, used vulgar language towards the client in public, and used his credit cards and property without authorization.

The panel found the member guilty of professional misconduct, ordered a reprimand, imposed conditions on her certificate, and suspended her registration for a minimum of six months.

The respondents sought leave under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act to commence a derivative action.

The appellants, who were the intended defendants in the proposed action, moved to intervene in the leave application.

The motions judge dismissed the motion to intervene.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 246 permits the proceeding to be brought by application rather than motion, and that the motions judge did not err in exercising his discretion to deny intervention, as the intended defendants' rights would be fully protected once the action was commenced.

The member, a registered nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for falsely claiming on her resume and during a job interview that she held a Bachelor of Science of Administration degree and was enrolled in a Master of Business Administration program.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The member's certificate of registration was suspended for 30 days and she was issued an oral reprimand.

The appellant dentist appealed an order striking his statement of claim against counsel retained by the professional regulator in disciplinary proceedings.

The Court of Appeal majority held that novelty was not a basis to strike a malicious prosecution claim at the pleading stage and that the pleaded civil conspiracy claim should also stand.

Although the pleadings were poorly drafted, the majority concluded the matter should proceed to trial, leaving the trial judge to assess the various claims on the evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the motion judge's order was set aside, and the motion to strike was dismissed with costs to the appellant here and below.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for misappropriating Ativan from several clients at a long-term care facility.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member guilty.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a six-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, imposing conditions on her return to practice, and requiring an oral reprimand.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct after mistakenly inserting a rectal suppository into the vagina of a four-and-a-half-year-old anesthetized patient in the operating room.

The Member admitted to failing to maintain the standards of practice.

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

A Joint Submission on Penalty was accepted, resulting in an oral reprimand and a direction that the results of the proceeding not be included in the public portion of the register, given the Member's remorse, immediate remedial actions, and unblemished 30-year career.

The appellant father, earning over $945,000 annually, appealed a child support order requiring him to pay the Table amount of $10,034 per month for his two children.

He argued that the Table amount was inappropriate under s. 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and that the word 'inappropriate' allowed for downward variation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'inappropriate' means 'unsuitable', granting courts discretion to increase or decrease Table amounts for high-income earners.

However, the Court found a presumption in favour of the Table amounts and concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused her discretion in awarding the Table amount in this case.