Richard Steinecke

The applicant, a designated manager of a pharmacy, sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

Following a dispensing error where a pediatric patient received the wrong medication, the ICRC ordered the applicant to receive an oral caution and complete a remedial course on root cause analysis.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable given the applicant's responsibility for pharmacy policies.

The applicant, a pharmacy manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to caution him and require an educational program following a serious dispensing error by a pharmacist at his pharmacy.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair, claiming he was improperly held responsible for another's mistake and denied procedural fairness regarding his discipline history and communication issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, noting the applicant's responsibility as designated manager for pharmacy policies and procedures.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed an order requiring him to complete a communication skills program following a patient complaint.

The applicant argued he was not given notice that the tone of his response to the complaint would be considered, and that the ordered program was not a specified remediation program under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as the committee was entitled to consider the applicant's response without further notice, and the ordered program was sufficiently specified.

The respondent Association brought a motion to quash the applicant's application for judicial review of a Registration Committee decision denying his registration as a professional geoscientist.

The court granted the motion, finding the application manifestly premature because the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory appeal to the Council of the Association, which he had already commenced but adjourned.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the Association.

The applicant chiropractor sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a written caution issued by the College of Chiropractors of Ontario regarding the tone and language of a letter sent to a patient.

The applicant argued the Board failed to address a claim of reasonable apprehension of bias concerning a committee member who had co-authored an academic article critical of the applicant's treatment philosophy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no merit to the bias claim and concluding that the Board's decision to uphold the written caution was reasonable.

The applicant, the president of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Association's Council to accept the resignation of a councillor.

The councillor had submitted an unequivocal resignation via email but later attempted to retract it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that at common law, the resignation of a director of a corporation without share capital is effective upon delivery and does not require acceptance by the corporation.

Furthermore, once delivered, the resignation cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the remaining directors.

The appellant appealed a costs decision of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Committee had dismissed a complaint regarding the appellant's election campaign material but denied his request for costs, finding the commencement of proceedings was not unwarranted.

The Divisional Court held that although the Committee erred in its view of what the Complaints Committee knew, this error did not render the decision unreasonable, as the election material could still reasonably be viewed as crossing the line into unprofessional conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession.

While on supervisory lunch duty, the Member kicked students' shoes that were not placed against the wall, making contact with a student who fell and suffered minor scraping.

The Discipline Committee accepted the plea and found the Member guilty.

The Committee ordered the Member to be counselled and directed publication of the findings and order in summary form without the Member's name, noting the minor nature of the incident, the Member's cooperation, and prior remedial steps.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

College counsel determined there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations and no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding of professional misconduct.

The member's counsel consented.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding the withdrawal reasonable, appropriate, and in the public interest.

The appellants appealed a decision of the respondent's Discipline Committee denying them the costs of a hearing.

The appellants argued that the Complaints Committee's referral of the matter to a hearing was unwarranted because it relied on an expert opinion that should have been rejected upon more careful investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee reasonably concluded the referral was not unwarranted based on the information before the Complaints Committee at the time.

The member, a secondary school teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct involving inappropriate relationships and sexual abuse of four male students over a four-year period.

The Discipline Committee accepted the uncontested facts and found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate.

Despite the member's request for anonymity, the Committee ordered the publication of the decision with the member's name, citing the egregious nature of the conduct, the serial pattern of abuse, and the need for general deterrence and transparency.

The Member, a Vice-principal, pleaded no contest to professional misconduct for failing to report an incident of sexual assault involving a student to the proper authorities, contrary to school board policy.

The Discipline Committee initially found the Member guilty and ordered a reprimand, completion of an ethics course, and publication with name.

The Committee later reconsidered its decision because it had erroneously relied on a withdrawn allegation regarding a failure to report to the Children's Aid Society.

Upon reconsideration, the Committee affirmed its original penalty, including publication with the Member's name, emphasizing the serious nature of failing to report a sexual assault and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against a Grade 4 teacher.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the member incompetent based on evidence of severe deficiencies in classroom management, instructional strategies, and student safety, as well as two consecutive unsatisfactory performance appraisals.

The allegations of professional misconduct were dismissed as no evidence was presented.

The Committee ordered that terms, conditions, and limitations be placed on the member's certificate, requiring her to complete additional qualification courses and submit two satisfactory performance appraisals upon returning to teaching.

The College brought a discipline proceeding against a teacher who pushed and jumped on a female colleague from behind in jest.

The member pled no contest to the allegations and agreed to a joint submission on resolution.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting the behaviour was on the low end of the scale and did not involve students.

The Committee ordered the member to complete a course on appropriate professional relationships and directed publication of the decision without the member's name.

The Member, a Grade 6 teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for posting inappropriate drawings and limericks about a female student on a dormitory window during a school trip.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member guilty of unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered an admonishment, completion of a course on boundary violations, and publication of the decision in summary form without the Member's name, noting the incident was isolated and minor in nature.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member, as it was highly unlikely the member would be found guilty.

With the consent of the parties and advice from independent legal counsel, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Association of Architects, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and age.

He claimed the Association was responsible because its individual members failed to hire him.

The respondent requested a summary dismissal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A and found that the Association, as a professional regulatory body, is not responsible for securing employment for its members or for the hiring decisions of individual architectural firms.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Member, a teacher in a Deaf/Hard of Hearing Department, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct for making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to a female co-worker using American Sign Language.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, completion of a course on workplace boundaries, and publication of the decision in summary form without the Member's name, noting the lack of prior history and the specific deterrence already achieved.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct arising from his use of inappropriate language, profanity, and sexually suggestive materials in the classroom, as well as leaving an opened bottle of alcohol in a classroom closet.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and the completion of a course on professional boundaries.

The Committee also ordered that the Member's name be published in the College's official publication, rejecting the Member's argument for publication without name, given the nature of the conduct and the Member's intention to return to teaching as an occasional teacher.

The Member, a school principal, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being convicted of criminal harassment against a female teacher at his school.

The Member pursued an unwanted personal relationship with the teacher, including making unwanted phone calls, sending gifts, and besetting her home.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension to be postponed and waived if the Member completes a course on boundary violations and professional ethics, and publication of the decision.