Niiti Simmonds

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario alleged that the registrant, a speech-language pathologist working as a care co-ordinator, engaged in professional misconduct.

The parties proceeded on an agreed statement of facts, admitting that the registrant failed to maintain standards of practice, did not adequately document her findings, and failed to obtain informed consent.

The Discipline Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a two-month suspension, a reprimand, completion of a course on informed consent, a mentorship program, and $2,000 in costs.

The College of Nurses of Ontario and the member presented a joint submission on penalty following findings of professional misconduct, including practicing out of scope and unprofessional conduct toward colleagues.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a four-month suspension, an oral reprimand, meetings with a regulatory expert, and 18 months of employer notification.

The panel found the penalty met the goals of general and specific deterrence, remediation, and public protection, and did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, admitted to professional misconduct involving verbal and emotional abuse of two patients.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Member held a patient's door shut and yelled at her to stay in her room.

In a separate incident, the Member interrupted a de-escalation attempt and used inappropriate language towards another patient.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on order, imposing a two-month suspension, an oral reprimand, remedial education with a Regulatory Expert, and 12 months of employer notification.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for stealing a deceased patient's cell phone, glasses, health card, and bag.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found that the Member's actions contravened the standards of practice, constituted misappropriation of property, and were disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Applying the Anthony-Cook test, the Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a 4-month suspension, and conditions including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a Registered Nurse for alleged sexual harassment of three colleagues, failing to notify a physician of a patient's low urine output, and administering intravenous fluids without an order.

The Member admitted to the clinical allegations, which the Panel found constituted professional misconduct that was dishonourable and unprofessional.

Regarding the contested harassment allegations, the Panel found the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct towards two colleagues by participating in inappropriate sexual banter and touching, but this conduct did not meet the definition of sexual harassment.

The allegations regarding the third colleague were dismissed due to inconsistent and unreliable evidence.

The matter was adjourned for a penalty hearing.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for stealing a sharps container and 10 vials of Dilaudid from her workplace, and for failing to report the resulting criminal charges for theft under $5,000 to the College.

The Member admitted to the allegations, citing a mental health crisis at the time of the thefts.

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

The Member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for 5 months, and conditions including employer notification and a restriction on independent practice were imposed.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting $2,600 in false claims to her employer's benefit plan for orthopaedic footwear, wrist braces, and compression stockings.

The Member used two physicians' stamps without their knowledge or authorization to create false prescriptions for herself and her spouse.

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

The Member was ordered to receive an oral reprimand, serve a 4-month suspension, attend meetings with a regulatory expert, and notify employers of the decision for 12 months.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct including a medication error, failing to transfer accountability, inappropriate communication regarding medication, and crossing professional boundaries by kissing a patient with dementia.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand, a 3-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The applicant sought to further defer her human rights application pending the outcome of a judicial review of an arbitrator's award that upheld her denial of tenure and termination.

The respondent argued the Tribunal should no longer defer and should determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and arbitration process was still ongoing due to the judicial review application and ordered the application deferred pending its completion.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin because the respondent, Pride Toronto, granted a marching permit to Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA).

The respondent requested summary dismissal.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations were rooted in political opinions, which are not protected grounds under the Human Rights Code, and that the applicant failed to establish any differential treatment or disadvantage based on a protected ground.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an internal workplace discrimination and harassment prevention policy investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation is not a legal proceeding that could lead to inconsistent findings of fact and law, and therefore deferral was not appropriate.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing recent retention of counsel, delayed document exchange, and a desire for more time to engage in settlement discussions.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the parties' reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction and jurisprudence.