Monica Tessier

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to her care of five palliative patients at a long-term care facility.

The College alleged she failed to meet standards of practice regarding medication administration and documentation, including administering medication more frequently than ordered and failing to document assessments and rationales.

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 Order, imposing a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct including verbal and emotional abuse of multiple vulnerable patients, neglect of basic patient care needs, and failure to document activities of daily living.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by breaching standards of practice, abusing patients, failing to keep records, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a 6-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to her care of a 99-year-old palliative patient.

The Member admitted to failing to conduct a timely pain assessment and administer pain medication despite multiple requests, and to using a towel soiled with vomit to clean the patient's mouth.

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

A Joint Submission on Order was accepted, resulting in an oral reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims to her employer's benefit plan for orthotics and compression stockings, receiving $5,530 in store credit for non-medical items.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for three months, and conditions were imposed requiring meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent registered nurse for submitting false claims under his employer's group benefit plan.

The respondent admitted to submitting false claims to obtain store credits for non-medicinal products, receiving $4,500.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the respondent committed professional misconduct by contravening standards of practice, misappropriating property, falsifying records, and engaging in dishonourable conduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims to her employer's benefit plan between 2013 and 2016, receiving at least $11,080 in store credits for non-medicinal products.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member contravened standards of practice, misappropriated property, falsified records, and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension, meetings with a regulatory expert, and a 12-month employer notification requirement.

The appellant, Phyllis Johnson, appealed a motion judge's order granting summary judgment and dismissing her dental malpractice action.

The appellant sought to adduce fresh expert evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding that it satisfied the Palmer test.

The court concluded that with this new evidence, the motion judge would have adjourned the summary judgment motion to allow the appellant to cure deficiencies in the expert report.

The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal of the action was set aside.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the self-represented plaintiff made unfounded allegations, his conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible or scandalous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants moved to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11.

The claim arose from the College's investigation and disposition of the plaintiff's complaint against a physician.

The court found the statement of claim was devoid of material facts and failed to articulate any recognized cause of action.

Furthermore, section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act rendered the allegations incapable of proof, and section 38 provided statutory immunity to the College.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The defendants sought to re-schedule a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.

The plaintiffs resisted, arguing for further discovery, mandatory mediation, and a right to a trial in open court, and also raised a potential conflict of interest concerning the defendants' counsel.

The court granted the re-scheduling, finding that the plaintiffs had ample time over five years to pursue procedural rights and obtain expert evidence, which was still lacking.

The court emphasized that there is no absolute right to a civil trial, particularly when expert evidence is essential but absent in a medical malpractice claim.

Concerns regarding mediation and counsel disqualification were dismissed as untimely and tactical.

The plaintiff brought a dental malpractice claim alleging improper tooth extraction.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue for trial due to the plaintiff's failure to produce an expert report on standard of care and causation.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, as the plaintiff, despite being self-represented and having multiple previous counsels, failed to provide expert evidence to counter the defendants' expert report which affirmed the standard of care was met.

The court found the case was not one of the 'clearest of cases' where expert evidence could be dispensed with.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain the boundaries of the therapeutic nurse-client relationship.

While employed at an addiction treatment facility, the Member engaged in a personal and romantic relationship with a vulnerable client, including exchanging letters and meeting in a bathroom.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for four months, and terms, conditions, and limitations were imposed.

The applicant, an access parent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, mental health, and other grounds against his child's doctor (SM Medical Centre), the Toronto Health Unit, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

He alleged the doctor improperly denied his child a hepatitis B vaccine and required him to prove his identity to access medical records, that the health unit's vaccination policies created barriers, and that the College's policies and investigation of his complaint were discriminatory.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing held by telephone conference call.

The respondents attended.

As the Notice of Hearing warned that failure to attend could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal dismissed the application on that basis.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and other grounds against his former physician, the university where she practiced, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for the adjudicator to recuse himself, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination by the physician occurred when she terminated the doctor-patient relationship more than one year before the application was filed.

As the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay, the application against the physician was dismissed.

Consequently, the vicarious liability claims against the university and the systemic discrimination claims against the College were also dismissed, as they depended on a finding of discrimination against the physician.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, alleged systemic discrimination by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, several universities, and the Medical Council of Canada regarding the requirements to practice medicine in Ontario.

He claimed the standardized clinical exam (NAC-OSCE) was culturally biased and that the requirement for Canadian clinical experience was discriminatory.

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

The allegations against the Medical Council were out of time, the applicant provided no evidence of cultural bias in the exam scoring, and the challenge to the College's experience requirement was premature as he had not yet applied for registration.