Roberto Luca Barbiero

The College alleged that the registrant audiologist engaged in professional misconduct and sexual abuse by inappropriately touching a student volunteer during a clinic visit.

The Discipline Committee found the complainant's evidence credible and concluded that the non-consensual touching occurred.

However, applying the Redhead criteria, the Committee determined the complainant was not a 'patient' under the Code, as the interaction was an educational demonstration rather than a clinical relationship.

Consequently, the sexual abuse allegation was dismissed, but the registrant was found to have committed professional misconduct for disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct, and for failing to maintain the standard of practice.

The College alleged that the registrant audiologist engaged in professional misconduct and sexual abuse by inappropriately touching a student volunteer during a clinic visit.

The Discipline Committee found the complainant's evidence credible and concluded that the non-consensual touching occurred.

However, applying the Redhead criteria, the Committee determined the complainant was not a 'patient' under the Code, as the interaction was an educational demonstration rather than a clinical relationship.

Consequently, the sexual abuse allegation was dismissed, but the registrant was found to have committed professional misconduct for disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct, and for failing to maintain the standard of practice.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed decisions of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons to take no further action regarding his complaints against three dentists.

The applicant alleged procedural fairness violations and that the decisions were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board accorded the applicant procedural fairness and that its decisions were reasonable and adequately justified.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drugs Programs to revoke its billing privileges following an inspection that revealed over $250,000 in unsubstantiated and non-compliant claims.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable because the new owner was not responsible for the prior owner's misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Executive Officer reasonably concluded that the new owner was responsible for the pharmacy's compliance and that problematic billing practices continued under his management.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) on informed consent.

The order arose from a patient complaint regarding the administration of conscious sedation during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's concerns about the lack of one-on-one communication and the applicant's reliance on staff for informed consent were supported by the record, making the HPARB's confirmation of the decision reasonable.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim order made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting her practice pending an investigation into her issuance of COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

The applicant challenged a specific term requiring her to consent to the College accessing her OHIP billing records to monitor compliance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the College had sufficient evidence of risk to patients and the public, and that the OHIP monitoring term was a reasonable measure to ensure compliance with the practice restrictions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board affirming a public health order to produce patient contact information following an infection control lapse at a dental clinic.

The sole ground of appeal was that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to exclude the appellant's husband, who acted as her agent, on its own initiative due to his alleged incompetence and prior inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation on the tribunal to inquire into the competence of a chosen agent or to exclude him absent an objection or clear prejudice.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering him to undergo a second specified continuous education or remediation program (SCERP) for ongoing medical record-keeping deficiencies.

The applicant argued the decision was an abuse of process and unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no abuse of process despite a minor procedural fairness breach, and held that the ICRC's decision to escalate remediation was a reasonable and proportionate response to the applicant's persistent record-keeping issues.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 26, 2017 and March 6, 2018.

The appellants were unsuccessful in their appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants appealed a contempt sentencing order from the Superior Court.

The respondent had brought an action claiming monies advanced to the appellants were not properly disbursed and that the appellants lacked a proper accounting system.

An interim order required the appellants to account for monies received, disclose documents to an appointed accounting firm, and pay unpaid accounts.

The appellants were found in contempt for failing to comply with the accounting and disclosure requirements.

On appeal, the appellants did not contest the contempt finding but challenged the sentencing as based on an erroneous finding that they had not purged their contempt and as disproportionate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in refusing to admit fresh evidence regarding purge of contempt, and that the sentence was disproportionate.

A pharmacist challenged the Ontario College of Pharmacists' jurisdiction to prosecute discipline charges after the College failed to comply with mandatory statutory timelines for processing a written complaint under section 25 of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Instead, the College accepted the complainant's withdrawal and proceeded with a registrar-initiated investigation under section 75.

The Divisional Court quashed the charges, finding the College lost jurisdiction through non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that written complaints may be withdrawn when the College agrees and the matter proceeds through another statutory process with full procedural safeguards.

The court balanced the public interest in regulating the profession against the accused member's fair hearing rights, finding no procedural unfairness or prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists dismissing his motion to quash disciplinary charges.

The charges arose from a complaint that the College failed to process according to the mandatory statutory requirements under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Instead of following the complaint process, the College invited the complainant to withdraw her complaint in favour of a Registrar's investigation under s. 75(1)(a).

The Divisional Court held that the College's failure to strictly comply with the statutory complaint procedures deprived it of jurisdiction to refer the matter to discipline.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Panel's decision was quashed, and the College was prohibited from prosecuting the charges.