Natasha S. Danson

In a professional discipline proceeding, the College brought a case management motion for an order dispensing with the requirement to provide further notice to the registrant.

The registrant had resigned from the College, failed to attend a case management conference, and could not be reached despite exhaustive efforts by the College's investigators.

The Tribunal found that the registrant had actual notice of the proceeding and chose not to participate.

The Tribunal granted the order, directing that the College is not required to provide further notice, save for one final phone call prior to the hearing.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted issuing or permitting false receipts for treatments not provided to two clients and failing to maintain treatment records for multiple appointments for a third client.

The Tribunal held that the admitted conduct constituted professional misconduct under several paragraphs of s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94, including false or misleading documentation, record-keeping failures, and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

Applying the joint-submission standard, the panel accepted the jointly proposed penalty as consistent with the public interest and proportionate, particularly given the registrant's prior discipline for similar misconduct.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, a six-month suspension, remedial educational terms, compliance audits, and costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted that he practised psychotherapy while his certificate of registration was suspended and failed to respond to the College within 15 days as required by a prior discipline order.

The Tribunal found professional misconduct under subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 45, 46, 47, and 52 of s. 1 of O. Reg. 317/12.

Applying the Anthony-Cook standard for joint submissions, the Tribunal accepted a jointly proposed penalty, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, governability, and rehabilitation despite serious concerns arising from repeated non-compliance and prior discipline history.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, a suspension for a minimum of four months continuing until specified remediation is completed, additional terms and possible mentoring, and costs of $4,700.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct proceedings against the respondent for failing to keep proper records of her speech-language pathology services.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The respondent was ordered to serve a one-month suspension, complete an individualized mentorship program and a medical record-keeping course, receive a reprimand, and pay $5,000 in costs.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct proceedings against the respondent for failing to keep proper records of her speech-language pathology services.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The respondent was ordered to serve a one-month suspension, complete an individualized mentorship program and a medical record-keeping course, receive a reprimand, and pay $5,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal of his application for registration as a Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioner and Acupuncturist.

The appellant had failed the required prior learning assessment process (PLAR) case study assessment twice.

On appeal, he argued the Board erred in denying his request for an adjournment and in finding he did not meet the registration requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary decision to deny the adjournment or its reliance on the PLAR competency assessments.

The appellant, Behrouz Salehi, brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a 2016 Court of Appeal decision that had dismissed his appeal.

The motion was based on newly discovered facts related to his negligence claim against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario concerning his licensing application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a motion where the underlying order was affirmed on appeal; such motions must be brought before the Superior Court.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 37 to vary or set aside the Divisional Court's final costs disposition in the underlying application.

The applicant argued that the court's costs reasons did not address several of her submissions.

The court dismissed the motion without requiring a response from the respondent, finding it manifestly devoid of merit.

The court held that it had considered all submissions in its original costs decision and was now functus officio, noting that any remedy must be sought in the Court of Appeal.

The College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario held an uncontested discipline hearing regarding a registrant who admitted to engaging in a concurrent sexual and treating relationship with a patient from 2016 to 2018.

The Discipline Committee found that the conduct constituted sexual abuse of a patient and professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the registrant's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, reimbursement for any patient therapy funding, and $2,000 in costs.

The College of Veterinarians appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee excluding evidence against a veterinarian accused of possessing child pornography.

The evidence was obtained by police during a criminal investigation that was later withdrawn due to a conceded s. 8 Charter breach.

The Discipline Committee excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, relying on a case (Viscomi) to find the police search warrant application was materially misleading.

The Divisional Court held that the Committee's reliance on Viscomi was wrong in law, rendering its s. 24(2) Grant analysis unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient shortly after their therapeutic relationship ended.

The member admitted to the allegations and the panel found she engaged in professional misconduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, ordering a public reprimand, a four-month suspension (with three months remitted upon completion of an ethics and boundaries remediation program), a two-year monitoring period, and $5,000 in costs.

The panel noted the member's cooperation, lack of prior disciplinary history, and proactive completion of the remediation program as mitigating factors.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient shortly after their therapeutic relationship ended.

The member admitted to the allegations and the panel found she engaged in professional misconduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, ordering a public reprimand, a four-month suspension (with three months remitted upon completion of an ethics and boundaries remediation program), a two-year monitoring period, and $5,000 in costs.

The panel noted the member's cooperation, lack of prior disciplinary history, and proactive completion of the remediation program as mitigating factors.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent in delaying the issuance of his engineering licence.

The events in question occurred prior to 2013, but the application was not filed until October 2016.

The applicant had previously commenced a civil action against the respondent in 2013, which was dismissed on summary judgment.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that he delayed filing because he was waiting for evidence from the civil proceeding or because he believed he could not pursue both proceedings simultaneously.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The appellant veterinarian appealed findings of professional misconduct, penalty, and costs made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario.

The Committee found the appellant guilty of obstructing an investigation, suppressing evidence, and having criminal convictions for assault.

On appeal, the appellant argued procedural unfairness due to language barriers and lack of a witness list, and challenged the reasonableness of the credibility findings, penalty, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the Committee's decisions on misconduct, the four-month suspension, practice restrictions, and costs were reasonable.

The appellant, an audiologist with a doctorate degree, appealed a discipline panel's finding of professional misconduct for using the title 'Doctor' in her clinical practice, contrary to s. 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

She argued that the prohibition violated her freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and raised several jurisdictional challenges against the College.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was bound by Supreme Court precedent finding no s. 2(b) violation for similar professional title restrictions.

Alternatively, the Court found that any infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit to prevent public confusion.

The Court also dismissed all jurisdictional arguments, finding the tribunal's decisions on procedure, penalty, and costs to be reasonable.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Birgit Johnston and her business, Cutting Edge K9 Oral Hygiene, from practicing veterinary medicine and holding themselves out as such, specifically concerning anesthesia-free dog teeth cleaning.

The respondents also moved for an adjournment and transfer of the main application.

The court dismissed the College's motion for an interlocutory injunction, finding that while there was a serious issue regarding the practice of dentistry, the College failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The main application was adjourned pending the respondents' motion to transfer.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his negligence action against the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (APEO) regarding the processing of his engineering license application.

The motion judge found that the APEO owed no duty of care, or alternatively, was protected by statutory immunity under s. 45(1) of the Professional Engineers Act absent bad faith.

The Court of Appeal agreed that there was no evidence of bad faith, malice, or abuse of power by the APEO.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following the dismissal of a civil action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the defendant’s bill of costs, the conduct of the plaintiff during the litigation, and the principles governing costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff challenged the fairness of the earlier decision and disputed the hours billed by defence counsel.

The court held that costs generally follow the event and that the rates and hours claimed were largely reasonable.

Costs of the action, including the summary judgment motion, were fixed at an all-inclusive amount of $30,000.