3 total
Chiropodist reprimanded and ordered to pay $8,000 in costs after permanently resigning over falsified orthotics claims.
The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for validating insurance claims for orthotics dispensed by clinic staff and non-registrants, falsifying patient records, and providing false information to an insurance company.
Prior to the hearing, the registrant undertook to permanently resign from the College and never reapply.
The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $8,000 in costs, finding that the permanent resignation adequately protected the public and the penalty did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Single judge lacks jurisdiction to hear motion to admit further evidence on appeal; adjourned to panel.
The moving party, the College of Nurses of Ontario, brought a motion to introduce further evidence on an appeal to address the appellant's allegation of a denial of procedural fairness.
The appellant brought a cross-motion to adduce responding evidence.
The single judge of the Divisional Court held that pursuant to s. 134(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 61.16(2), a motion to admit further evidence on appeal must be made to the panel hearing the appeal.
Accordingly, the single judge lacked jurisdiction and adjourned the motion and cross-motion to be heard by the appeal panel.
Pharmacist's liability appeal dismissed, but penalty reduced because exercising right to hearing is not aggravating.
The appellant pharmacist appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.
The Committee had found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct, including improper solicitation and misusing confidential patient information, and imposed a twelve-month suspension.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on liability, finding no error in the Committee's credibility assessments or application of the burden of proof.
However, the Court allowed the penalty appeal in part, finding the Committee erred in law by treating the appellant's exercise of his right to a hearing as an aggravating factor.
The suspension was reduced from twelve to ten months.
