Samil Latif Mohamedali Chagpar

The College alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by failing to comply with the Quality Assurance Program and failing to respond to College inquiries.

The registrant did not attend the hearing and was deemed to have admitted the allegations.

The Tribunal found the misconduct established, noting a persistent pattern of non-compliance.

The Tribunal ordered a five-month suspension, terms and conditions on the registrant's certificate of registration, a reprimand, and costs of $5,110.

The registrant massage therapist pleaded no contest to allegations of sexually abusing a patient, including touching her genitals, breasts, and buttocks without consent.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the registrant committed professional misconduct, including sexual abuse and physical abuse.

Given the nature of the sexual abuse, the Tribunal imposed the mandatory penalty of revocation of the registrant's certificate of registration and a reprimand, along with orders for costs and reimbursement for patient therapy and counselling.

The College of Massage Therapists of Ontario and the registrant jointly requested an indefinite adjournment of a discipline proceeding.

The registrant, facing allegations of sexual, verbal, and physical abuse of a patient, resigned from the College and agreed never to reapply to any massage therapy regulatory body in Canada.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting it saves time and costs, spares witnesses from testifying, and provides a certain outcome while protecting the public.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted issuing or permitting false receipts for treatments not provided to two clients and failing to maintain treatment records for multiple appointments for a third client.

The Tribunal held that the admitted conduct constituted professional misconduct under several paragraphs of s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94, including false or misleading documentation, record-keeping failures, and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

Applying the joint-submission standard, the panel accepted the jointly proposed penalty as consistent with the public interest and proportionate, particularly given the registrant's prior discipline for similar misconduct.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, a six-month suspension, remedial educational terms, compliance audits, and costs.

In a professional discipline decision, the tribunal found professional misconduct arising from a registrant’s sexual assault of a client who was also his employee, together with related sexual and physical abuse, breach of consent and boundary standards, and dishonesty in failing to report criminal charges, bail conditions, and conviction to the College.

The tribunal held that resignation from the College did not remove jurisdiction over conduct committed while registered.

Mandatory revocation and reprimand followed under the Health Professions Procedural Code because the abuse involved touching of a sexual nature of the client’s genitals and there was a criminal conviction for sexual assault.

The tribunal also accepted a joint submission requiring reimbursement of therapy and counselling funding, posting of security, and tariff costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $16,215.95 for the early termination of a vehicle lease agreement.

At trial, the appellant claimed he did not sign the lease agreement and had an oral agreement that no penalty would apply for early return.

The Deputy Judge found as a fact that the appellant had signed the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Deputy Judge's factual findings and credibility determinations were entitled to deference and revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The plaintiff sought to enforce an unpaid oppression judgment against the defendant Daniel Xiao by bringing a fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy action against him, his former wife, and her parents.

The court found that the defendants fraudulently conveyed a Toronto property to the parents and subsequently used the proceeds and other funds to purchase a Vancouver property in the wife's name to defeat the plaintiff's claims.

The court rejected the defendants' laches defence, finding no acquiescence or irredeemable prejudice despite a lengthy delay.

The court allowed the tracing of funds and awarded judgments of $60,000 against the parents and $175,000 against the former wife.

This costs endorsement arose from a motion brought by the applicant wife for the appointment of an interim receiver, which was adjourned after the respondent husband secured financing.

The court found the applicant was justified in bringing the motion due to the husband's delay in payment but acted unreasonably by refusing to adjourn the motion when requested by the co-respondent brother, who had recently retained counsel.

Consequently, the court significantly reduced the applicant's requested costs, disallowing fees for court attendance and scrutinizing the reasonableness of claimed hours and disbursements.

The respondent husband was ordered to pay $9,744.61 in costs.

The applicant, a student, alleged discrimination by the respondent school resulting in his dismissal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled that the allegations dating back to November 2012 constituted a series of incidents and were therefore timely.

The Tribunal also granted requests to remove the personal respondent and to amend the application to add the ground of disability.

Various requests for the production of documents were decided, including denying the applicant's request for other students' disciplinary records and granting the respondent's requests for the applicant's educational and medical records.

The applicant, a 75-year-old former school bus driver, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of age when it did not hire him for a route.

The respondent had recently acquired another transportation company and was contractually obligated to assign its existing drivers to the available routes.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a rational, credible, and non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decision based on contractual obligations and cost-containment.

The application was dismissed.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion for contempt against a lawyer who was not a party to the litigation but who held proceeds from the sale of the respondent’s business in trust.

A prior ex parte freezing order required the proceeds of sale to remain in trust pending further court order, except for payment to a secured creditor and legal fees.

Despite receiving the order and being warned not to breach it, the lawyer disbursed substantial funds to trade creditors, family members of the respondent, and others without seeking court approval.

The court held that the order was clear and unequivocal and that negotiations between counsel did not alter its binding effect.

Applying the contempt test, the court found that the lawyer knowingly and deliberately breached the order beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following dismissal of a motion for summary judgment arising from claims connected to a Ponzi scheme, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty of the factual circumstances, but the court held that novelty alone does not justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The defendants sought either substantial indemnity or partial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs’ litigation strategy unsuccessful but not unreasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each defendant, with modest reductions applied to certain claimed amounts.

The plaintiffs and defendants were all victims of a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by an investment advisor.

The plaintiffs, who were late entrants to the scheme, provided bank drafts directly payable to the defendants, who were early entrants, under the mistaken belief they were investing in legitimate bridge financing.

When the scheme collapsed, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for the return of their money, alleging unjust enrichment and mistake of fact.

The plaintiffs brought a consolidated motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the defendants were unjustly enriched or if the payments were made under a mistake of fact, and noting that the novel legal issues and ongoing bankruptcy proceedings required a full trial.

A creditor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to set aside a transfer of a debtor’s interest in the matrimonial home to his spouse as a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The debtor had personally guaranteed a corporate loan and transferred his joint interest in the home to his spouse for nominal consideration during the period when the corporation was seeking loan accommodations.

The court found multiple badges of fraud, including the non-arm’s-length relationship, lack of consideration, timing of the transfer, and the effect of placing the debtor’s only significant asset beyond the reach of creditors.

The court held that the conveyance was made with intent to defeat, hinder, delay, or defraud creditors and that no genuine issue required a trial.

Summary judgment was granted setting aside the transfer as void against the creditor.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the matter was settled by minutes of settlement in a related small claims court action.

A conference call hearing was scheduled.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment citing medical reasons, providing a doctor's note that was over a month old and did not state he was unable to participate.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment.

When the applicant failed to participate in the scheduled conference call hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application.