Sarina Nezhadian

The applicant physician applied for reinstatement of his certificate of registration, which was revoked in 2019 for sexual abuse of a patient.

The College did not oppose the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had engaged in extensive rehabilitation, including psychotherapy and boundaries courses, and demonstrated significant insight and remorse.

Concluding that the risk of future misconduct was low and manageable, the Tribunal granted the reinstatement subject to strict terms, conditions, and limitations, including clinical supervision and practice assessments.

The registrant was previously found to have committed professional misconduct by failing to obtain informed consent and conducting inappropriate physical examinations of two patients.

At the penalty hearing, the Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The registrant was ordered to be reprimanded, suspended for five months, complete an ethics and boundaries course, and pay $30,000 in costs.

The Tribunal found the penalty met the goals of public protection, deterrence, and remediation, noting the registrant's lack of prior discipline and proactive remedial efforts.

The appellant, J. Michael Evans, appealed the refusal of building and septic permits for Harry Island in the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

The court found that Evans failed to establish a legal nonconforming residential use of the boathouse on Harry Island, as there was no evidence of actual residential use or intention to continue such use since the 1920s or 1930s.

The court also held that the chief building official did not have discretion under the zoning bylaw to deem the undersized island to conform.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the septic permit, finding that compliance with the Building Code superseded the municipal bylaw’s setback requirement.

The moving party sought to stay an upcoming Law Society Tribunal hearing pending her application for judicial review.

She argued the Law Society committed an abuse of process by improperly obtaining documents from her bank.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the judicial review application was premature as the administrative process had not yet run its course.

The court also held that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the scheduled hearing to avoid further delay and fragmentation of the proceedings.

The moving party brought a motion before the Divisional Court.

The motion was dismissed for oral reasons dictated in court, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the application by agreement of the parties.