Shane Smith

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the appellant made false statements on multiple registration applications regarding outstanding judgments, debts, and bankruptcies, and that he misappropriated commission funds owed to realtors employed by his former brokerage.

The Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly made false statements on his applications and that his past conduct, including the misappropriation of funds and failure to notify the Registrar of material changes, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse registration, finding that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's order for the immediate suspension of her real estate licence pending a hearing for revocation.

The Registrar alleged serious breaches of the Code of Ethics, including a pattern of abuse and harassment towards former business partners and failure to disclose criminal charges.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established a prima facie case of conduct that poses a risk to the public.

The Tribunal ordered that the immediate suspension be extended until the conclusion of the revocation hearing, as it is in the public interest to protect the public from such conduct.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke her registration as a real estate broker due to professional misconduct, including accepting cash gifts and mobile phones from a client and making misrepresentations to the Real Estate Council of Ontario.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to suspend the appellant's registration for 28 weeks instead of revoking it, subject to conditions including a five-year prohibition on acting as a broker of record, restrictions on accepting gifts or entering lending arrangements with clients, and an order to pay $17,000 in restitution to the client.

The appellant, a registered real estate broker, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration and an Immediate Suspension Order issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant took advantage of a vulnerable client for personal gain.

The appellant requested the suspension be lifted pending the hearing and sought a sealing order due to allegations of sexual harassment by the client.

The Tribunal found the Registrar established a prima facie case but failed to prove the public interest required the suspension to continue, as there was no evidence of a pattern of conduct or risk to other consumers.

The Tribunal also denied the sealing order, finding the allegations did not outweigh the open court principle.

The Immediate Suspension Order was set aside.

During a hearing appealing the revocation of his registration as a salesperson, the appellant introduced an email communication with his counsel into evidence but refused to disclose an attached draft notice of motion, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The respondent sought production of the attachment.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the draft motion, finding that even if the document was privileged, the appellant waived that privilege by voluntarily disclosing and relying on the email to support his case.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate agent under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

His licence had previously been revoked and a subsequent re-application refused due to significant debts and disciplinary fines.

Under s. 17 of the Act, the appellant was required to show new evidence or a material change in circumstances.

The Tribunal found that a material change must be positive in nature and relate to the reasons for the previous refusal.

Because the appellant's income had decreased and his debt load had increased, he failed to demonstrate a positive material change.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The applicant, a real estate agent, sought judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Appeals Committee dismissing his motion for an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The respondent conceded that the Appeals Committee's decision breached procedural fairness because the Chairperson had previously presided at pre-hearing conferences.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Vavilov, the Divisional Court declined to remit the matter back to the tribunal, finding that granting the extension of time was the inevitable outcome.

The court quashed the decision and granted the extension of time.

The appellant, a registered real estate broker, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to suspend his registration.

The Registrar alleged the appellant provided false statements on renewal applications by having staff complete his mandatory continuing education courses and failing to disclose his involvement in another business.

The Tribunal found that the appellant made false statements and that his past conduct, including the use of highly inappropriate language towards employees, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension of the appellant's registration, rejecting arguments that the suspension was disproportionate or amounted to double jeopardy following provincial offences fines.

The appellant's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn the final argument of her appeal to allow time to seek correction of her medical records under section 55 of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing the evidence was inadmissible.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the respondent or risk to the public, and directed that the proposed evidence be treated similarly to a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of her appeal from the Registrar's decision refusing to grant her registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The appellant argued that an adjournment was necessary to review a recently obtained clinical report and newly disclosed FSCO reports.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding would risk prejudice and unfairness to the appellant, and noting there was no risk to the public as the appellant was not currently engaged in real estate dealings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

Neither the applicant nor their representative attended the hearing or provided an explanation for their absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, alleging discrimination and reprisal on various grounds.

The allegations primarily related to child protection proceedings, medical treatment, and benefit entitlements spanning several years.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the allegations either had no reasonable prospect of success, fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, or had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to its failure to provide pre-hearing disclosure and the illness of a witness.

The Tribunal found that these reasons did not constitute extraordinary circumstances that would normally justify an adjournment.

However, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to prevent prejudice to the applicant, who was entitled to notice of the respondent's case regarding its duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal converted the first scheduled hearing day into a mediation-adjudication session.

The applicant alleged that she was subjected to age-based harassment by a frontline supervisor at the respondent's fast food restaurant, and that the respondent reprised against her after she complained to corporate head office.

The Tribunal found that the supervisor was not a directing mind of the respondent, and therefore the respondent was not liable for his alleged harassment under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent acted reasonably in response to the applicant's concerns and that no reprisal occurred, as the applicant's complaint to head office was about hours of work, not an attempt to enforce a right under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The member was found to have committed professional misconduct relating to the emotional and physical abuse of a vulnerable client.

Following the findings, the College and the member presented a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a three-month suspension of the member's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, and terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The panel found the penalty addressed specific and general deterrence, remediation, and public protection, and fell within the range of reasonable outcomes for similar misconduct.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced a discipline hearing for failing to intervene when another nurse abused an unresponsive 17-year-old client in the emergency department.

The Member admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for physically and mentally abusing an elderly resident by throwing milk on her, and for subsequently falsifying a reference letter to obtain new employment.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations proven based on clear and consistent witness testimony.

The Committee concluded the Member's actions constituted professional misconduct and ordered a five-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and conditions on her certificate of registration should she return to practice.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a member for practising as a registered nurse, using the title 'RN', and performing controlled acts (administering injections) while her certificate of registration was suspended for non-payment of fees over an eight-year period.

The member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts characterizing her conduct as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Discipline Committee found the conduct to be dishonourable and unprofessional, but rejected the admission that it was disgraceful, finding insufficient evidence that it shamed the profession or demonstrated a lack of moral fitness.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension, and remedial terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The applicant, who has complex health problems, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the provision and eventual termination of home care services by the SECCAC and the respondent Ministries.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against the Ministries, finding no Code requirement for government benefit programs to be perfectly tailored to individual needs.

The Tribunal also dismissed most claims against the SECCAC regarding the quality of care and failure to accommodate, as disagreements over medical care do not constitute discrimination.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the termination of services was discriminatory to proceed, as it required evidence to determine if the complexity of the applicant's disability was a factor in the service providers' refusal to work.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race during his involuntary detention at a mental health facility.

The parties brought a joint motion for a consent order to resolve the complaint.

The Tribunal granted the motion and issued a consent order requiring the facility to educate patients on harassment and discrimination, requiring a doctor to meet with the applicant to discuss prevention strategies, and ordering the Ministry to pay the applicant $20,000.