Ruba El-Sayegh

The College of Physiotherapists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by referring patients to a Pilates studio and allowing the studio to bill those services as physiotherapy under her name and registration number.

The registrant admitted to the allegations via an agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the registrant failed to maintain the standards of practice, submitted false or misleading accounts, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a 15-month suspension (with 7 months remitted upon completion of remediation), practice enhancement coaching, a reprimand, and $7,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found the registrant guilty of multiple acts of professional misconduct arising from counselling a vulnerable client, engaging in boundary violations and sexual misconduct, failing to maintain competence, and keeping deficient records.

The panel relied on the registrant’s admissions and an Agreed Statement of Facts establishing abuse of power, dual relationships, failure to involve the client in treatment planning, inadequate documentation, and sexualized communications and conduct.

A publication ban was ordered under s. 28(7) of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 to protect the client’s identity.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, noting that the registrant’s permanent resignation and undertaking not to practise provided robust public protection.

The registrant was reprimanded, publication of the decision and undertaking was ordered, and costs of $6,000 were awarded.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim and dismiss the action.

The plaintiff, a therapeutic counsellor, had previously sued the defendants in Small Claims Court and initiated various complaints regarding a fee-splitting and supervision arrangement.

The court found that the current action was an attempt to relitigate claims that had already been dismissed or settled, constituting an abuse of process.

Furthermore, the claims were statute-barred as they were discovered more than two years before the action was commenced.

The court dismissed all claims except for a defamation claim against one defendant, which was struck for lack of particularity but with leave to amend.