11 total
Audiologist found guilty of professional misconduct for inappropriately touching a student volunteer during a demonstration.
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.
Audiologist found guilty of professional misconduct for failing to comply with committee orders and ignoring communications.
The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for failing to comply with an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) and failing to respond to College communications.
The respondent admitted to the allegations, citing stress and business issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Discipline Committee found the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.
The Committee ordered a reprimand, a minimum three-month suspension, completion of specified courses, compliance with the outstanding ICRC orders, and $10,000 in costs.
Motion for extension of time to appeal liquor licence suspension dismissed due to excessive delay.
The appellant sought an extension of time to file an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence.
The Registrar had granted multiple extensions over several months, but the appellant repeatedly failed to meet the deadlines.
Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found no bona fide intention to appeal, an excessive delay of 5.5 months, prejudice to the Registrar, and a lack of demonstrated merit to the appeal.
The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.
Gaming assistant registration refused due to failure to disclose extensive criminal and driving records.
The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse his registration as a Category Two gaming assistant.
The Registrar refused the application due to discrepancies between the appellant's disclosure and his actual criminal and driving records, which included multiple crimes of dishonesty and driving while suspended.
The appellant claimed memory loss from a 2013 stroke caused the omissions.
The Tribunal rejected this explanation, finding it lacked credibility and medical corroboration.
The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with honesty, integrity, or in accordance with the law, and ordered the Registrar to carry out the refusal.
Liquor licence condition restricting late-night alcohol service removed on consent due to changed circumstances.
The applicant applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove a condition from its liquor licence that restricted the sale and service of alcohol indoors after 11 p.m.
The condition had been imposed four years prior based on a consent agreement between the previous licensee and the City of Toronto.
At a case conference, the parties agreed that there had been a change in circumstances, and the City of Toronto confirmed it had no objection to the removal.
The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the condition removed on consent.
Liquor licence condition restricting patio hours removed on consent due to change in circumstances.
The applicant licensee applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that restricted the hours of sale and service of alcohol on its patio.
The applicant provided evidence that an original objector and several neighbours now supported extending the patio hours.
The respondent Registrar agreed there was a change in circumstances and consented to the removal of the condition.
The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the condition removed, to be replaced with a condition allowing daily service until 10:15 pm.
Liquor licence granted; objector failed to prove issuance was contrary to the public interest.
The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for its restaurant.
A local resident and business owner objected, arguing that granting the licence was not in the public interest due to safety concerns, late-night disturbances near the premises, and prior municipal by-law infractions for smoking shisha.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objector failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting a lack of context connecting the street disturbances directly to the appellant's operations.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the liquor licence without conditions.
Patio liquor licence granted with conditions restricting amplified sound to address neighbourhood noise concerns.
The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an outdoor patio attached to its establishment.
Several neighbourhood residents objected due to concerns about noise and amplified music.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the application, and the appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that granting the patio liquor licence was in the public interest, noting the appellant's history of operating similar establishments without complaints and community support.
However, to address the residents' legitimate noise concerns, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions restricting amplified sound after 8 pm on weekdays and 11 pm on weekends, and requiring courtesy signs and a contact number for complaints.
Liquor licence granted for Kensington Market venue with conditions restricting hours to address resident concerns.
The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for a proposed restaurant and programmable art space in Kensington Market.
The Registrar issued a notice of proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents, the City of Toronto, and the Friends of Kensington Market.
The objectors argued the licence was not in the public interest due to concerns about noise, disturbance, and increased traffic.
The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting the appellant's business model was less likely to cause disturbances than existing problematic establishments.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence but attached conditions restricting hours of service and requiring signage, a contact number for residents, and exterior lighting to address community concerns.
